"mastering" questions....

[Reds Garage]

This is my first post, about work on my first album. I recorded my band off the floor, and overdubbed vox and lead guits. I had a few phase issues which I tried to deal with using eq and panning, but I have left some of it as I was trying to capture a live feel anyways. Everyone seems happy with the mix, as am I. My problem is with the 'mastering'. I've bounced the songs down to split mono, and am now trying to bring up the volume and capture the peaks with compression on each of the individual channels, and a comp on the master out. I noticed in a playing back an older mix that it seemed more open, and the most recent one in which I used more compression is squashed beyond use. I couldn't even listen to it. (don't know what was going on, maybe too much beer? ) So, a bunch of questions: do I eq the L and R individually before each channels compressor, or should I try it after? Should I be eqing the master out instead? Will reverb help with the high end loss that seems to be happening with compression? Does adjusting the release time of the limiter/compressor to fit the tempo help at all with the sound? I am actually not too concerned with making this sound "radio friendly", just the concern of the volume level not matching that of other CDs when played on home stereos. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks guys!

edit: the style of music is rock/punk with an old school country twang

 

[Massive Master]

It's incredibly likely that the recording will never reach "commercial levels" no matter what you do. The vast (VAST!!!) majority of recordings will not. A live recording, where you have "limited access" to the tracks, may have even less. So, shoot for the volume the *mix* wants - Not the one *you* want.

Anyway - EQ as necessary. If the L/R need different settings, then go for it. If not, there you go. Generally speaking, corrective EQ before compression. Shaping EQ is up to the mix.

Reverb and other things - You really need to just do what the mix is telling you to do.

 

[Farview]

Why would you mix out to split mono? Most of the time you would mix to an interleaved stereo file.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I know squat about 'puter recording since I'm an analog guy so interleaved stereo means nothing to me .
But as for the mix ....... if the compression makes it sound bad ..... don't use it! Seems simple enough but people want to use everything they read about people using and feel like theirs isn't 'right' unless they use it.
I mix my stuff to sound good first and foremost. As far as volume is concerned ..... unless I'm mixing something that actually will be on radio (read: Nothing ) I couldn't care less if it's loud or not within reason. I mean, you don't want something so quiet you lose resolution or the playback system can't get it up loud enough .... but other than that, I just turn up the volume and I suspect most listeners do that also. I do see people listen to stuff and turn it up if it's not loud enough so I'm sure that most stereos still come with volume controls.

 

[Reds Garage]

If I mixed out to stereo interleaved, then when I import it back into PT (my only option right now) it just splits the file again anyways which adds yet another step of 'processing' doesn't it? Hmmmm... So in bouncing to split mono am I losing the spatial positioning of the panned elements in my mix? How can I master a stereo file in PT? Is there a way to import it without it being split again or is that what it is supposed to do? Maybe this is part of the problem? I guess I could haul my PC to the studio and throw it into Wavelab, but the most recent version I have is 3.04. Don't really have any decent PC based plug ins either, been using Mac for 3 years now. Yikes. Any more input? Thanks.

 

[cello_pudding]

it's impossible to master 1 song.

who cares about how loud it is compared to radio.

just care about the quality of sound on your own songs, and the volume relative to your own songs.

nothing else.

you master all of your songs together, listen to the transition of each song. is there enough space between them? are the volume differences distracting?

nothing else.

everything else should be done in the mix. the mix right now is a left and right channel.

even if your mix is 34 tracks, you fix everything there, not the master. the only time you fix tone problems in the master is when you don't have access to the mix. mastering houses do use compression and eq and whatnot, but that's because they don't have access to the mix.

 

[EddieRay]

I always struggle with the volume level of my CDs too. I can get live recordings pretty close but not so much with the stuff I record in my, ahem, studio (bedroom).

I don't have an answer to the original post - I suppose it has to do with what a real mastering process could do for a song, which I don't have access to and therefore can't know first-hand. But I do watch for responses to questions like this (how to get a song up to commercial CD volume) and I usually see two mutually exclusive answers and I'm not sure what to make of it:

1. Have it mastered.
2. You can't master just one song.

 

[Reds Garage]

I appreciate the advice guys. Funny though, all the 'answers' seem to lead to more 'questions'.

cello pudding: I actually said in my post that I wasn't concerned about radio, I just want it to stand up to other CDs in peoples home stereos, that was a specific complaint from a band member that I am trying to figure out. Thanks though, it makes sense to listen to the songs in a row to compare their relative levels, but I have mixed out each song purposefully leaving lots of headroom, not paying attention to the overall level, as long as it didn't go to high. grrrrr...back to the drawing board...oh well, one more night, whadda ya do.

As for 'mastering', well, I actually put 'mastering' in quotes in the title because I know I am not 'mastering', but in fact just making my mix louder. The band was unwilling to spring for 'mastering' because they do not understand what 'mastering' is. Honestly, I don't really either, all I could tell them is they eq and compress and spread and make it LOUD. (my band by the way is made up of musicians who do NOT listen to radio crap, and have no desire to have that BIG sound, in fact believing 'that sound' to be quite sterile and lifeless, as do I) So here I am now trying to figure it out. Thanks for the feedback guys, off to the studio now to see what I can do.

 

[masteringhouse]

If I mixed out to stereo interleaved, then when I import it back into PT (my only option right now) it just splits the file again anyways which adds yet another step of 'processing' doesn't it?

The only processing that I'm aware of is that it will extract the left and right channels from the stereo mix. This shouldn't affect the audio in any way unless there's some sort of panning law being applied. Anyway this is the way that I've done it for years.

Mastering is a skill that can't really be expressed in a single forum thread, it's mostly about having the experience as John said to know what is mix is asking for and providing the correct frequency balance and level to enhance the mix, not necessarily just making things as loud as possible.

From your description it sounds like your hitting the compressor too hard and deep. Try a combination of medium compression (to "glue" the mix) and limiting later to bring down transients and raise the overall level. I usually setup a Pro Tools mastering session by having the audio track bussed to both an interface and aux channel (with plugs and external gear inserted). You can then A/B the mastered version against the original mix to hear the results of your processing. It's also helpful to have a reference track(s) in another audio track to hear the results of your mastering against a good commercial ref. Refs help when your monitoring environment isn't what it should be as your more likely to hear the affect of the room in both and compensate. Of course if your monitors aren't full range you still may be missing a large part of the picture, but you have to work with what you've got (or go elsewhere).

Good luck, and don't let it bother you too much if it doesn't sound like a million dollar release, it is home recording after all ...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Try a combination of medium compression (to "glue" the mix) and limiting later to bring down transients and raise the overall level.

Hey, Tom, this brings up an interesting question (for me, anyway.)

I've usually taken to taming the wildest transients first (often manually on the worst ones) and then applying the "glue" compression to the remaining mix. I've never really thought it was necessarily better or worse to hit the transients first before the general compression, and I'm not necessarily saying now that it's better. I always just kind of looked at it as fixing isolated problems (the transients) before applying a coat of finish to the entire thing. Kind of like planing the big bumps out of the wood before sanding the whole board. Then finally any limiting after that just for the RMS bump.

But I never really thought a whole lot about it beyond that assumption. Here it sounds like you're recommending that the light compression should come first and then follow that with limiting intended to tame transients. Is there an advantage to doing it in that order that I haven't considered (wouldn't be the first time I missed something )? Or am I just reading you too literally?

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Glen,

As always it's "whatever works" but I look at the "glue" as more of a mixing decision, and then often in moderation much like general bus compression. Personally I just like to get the mix in order first, then apply processing that I feel is needed for the entire album. Kind of like broad strokes then filling in the details. For my money overall level is achieved by limiting (and occasional converter clipping) more so than compression. So it's something that I prefer to make a final decision on later in the chain. I don't limit more than once other than the potential combination of converter clobbering and final limiter.

There are even some MEs that "print" a version of the master without limiting so that that they can go back to it for revisions and limit further or less depending on how loud the client wants their CD. It saves them time in having to recall an analog chain or other processing.

I'm not sure that I see too much of an advantage in removing large transients first, unless it was a really spastic drummer or quirk in the audio for example clicks or pops. Hopefully large swings in volume are there for a reason otherwise they should be addressed at the track level.

 

[Freudian Slip]

Not that my opinion matters much, but I've always done multi-band compression first and then limiting. My thought is that the less full spectrum limiting I have to do. The less I am affecting the mix in ways that I can't control.

As far as the original poster is concerned. I think it takes a while of subjecting your mixes to limiting and compression to learn what should not be left in a mix before moving to the mastering stage. A live recording with alot of bleed is a pretty tough road to hoe for anyone who wants to try and get anywhere near commercial levels. There's just so much garbage to get drug up in the process.

F.S.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen,

As always it's "whatever works" but I look at the "glue" as more of a mixing decision, and then often in moderation much like general bus compression. Personally I just like to get the mix in order first, then apply processing that I feel is needed for the entire album. Kind of like broad strokes then filling in the details. For my money overall level is achieved by limiting (and occasional converter clipping) more so than compression. So it's something that I prefer to make a final decision on later in the chain. I don't limit more than once other than the potential combination of converter clobbering and final limiter.

There are even some MEs that "print" a version of the master without limiting so that that they can go back to it for revisions and limit further or less depending on how loud the client wants their CD. It saves them time in having to recall an analog chain or other processing.

I'm not sure that I see too much of an advantage in removing large transients first, unless it was a really spastic drummer or quirk in the audio for example clicks or pops. Hopefully large swings in volume are there for a reason otherwise they should be addressed at the track level.

As always a very reasoned and reasonable answer.

As I go back and look at this again, I think we're pretty much talking the same thing as far as limiting for final volume coming last.

The main difference I think is that I prefer not to leave it to the final gain limiter to tame runaway transients. By that I'm referring to peaks that stick up more than a dB or two over the average peak level for no really good sonic reason. Often times these peaks are a result of the summing process and not readibly noticable or best addressable on the individual track level.

For example, there may be only 6 or 8 separate beats within a 12 bar structure where the attack of the snare, the kick, the bass and the vocal are all fine on the track level, and sound fine when summed. Yet when summed they just happen to align in time a few ms finer than normal and/or have just a smal extra l amount more energy in each track to be unnoticable at the track level, but when combined they wind up producing a transient peak that's 3dB or 4dB above the rest of the similar wave crests.

I personally am a fan of manually knocking those down to the average crest level in the 2mix before sending the 2mix to compression or limiting. Personally, I find that to be a much more transparent way of recovering those few extra dBs of headroom before they even go to compression, plus it allows me to adjust each runaway peak by a specific dB amount instead of a single ratio (and therefore variable dB level) across the board.

Is that part of mixing or mastering? Good question. It occurs after mixdown, and is part of the final polishing procedure, yet it is something I'd often do before handing off to an ME. I guess if I'm self-mastering, I consider it part of the mastering phase, but if I do it before i give the final to another ME, then it's part of the mixing phase .

Like you rightly say, whatever works, works . I just prefer personally not to wait for final limiting to tame the runaways; it seems to me like those need to be taken care of before that, and that the final limiting should be reserved for final volume effect only. Tomayto , tomahto, probably.

G.

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

my band by the way is made up of musicians who do NOT listen to radio crap, and have no desire to have that BIG sound, in fact believing 'that sound' to be quite sterile and lifeless, as do I

Funny, but that is exactly what you'll get, when you insist in making your master "competitive" LOUD. See my sig!

In my experience, most genres work well at -14 dB RMS sine. I target that level after I adjusted the relative volume between the tracks. This was actually the intention of Red Book as well, as it is about as loud as an average tape recording. Incidentally, the most of best mastered CD's are usually about this loud, while many more recent CD's are -8 dB and even louder, beeing either badly clipped and/or overcompressed beyond any listening pleasure.

You should not compress, just to make it loud. For example, I was told by a musician, he couldn't figure out, how his song should be compressed. I fixed serious frequency clashing and did a mix without any compression and made a proper master. The musician was surprised how well it actually worked out: http://www.abmischung.de/mixdemo_Eidetic_-_Erinnert_ihr_euch.ogg
It's not that I avoid compression at all costs, though about half of my mixes just work well without any.

 

[Nick98338]

(snip)
For example, there may be only 6 or 8 separate beats within a 12 bar structure where the attack of the snare, the kick, the bass and the vocal are all fine on the track level, and sound fine when summed. Yet when summed they just happen to align in time a few ms finer than normal and/or have just a smal extra l amount more energy in each track to be unnoticable at the track level, but when combined they wind up producing a transient peak that's 3dB or 4dB above the rest of the similar wave crests.

This is something that I have noticed, but have never (until now) read about anywhere. Sometimes the mix has peaks that the tracks don't have individually. I knock the peaks off the tracks, first. Then, after I mix, I need to knock peaks off again. Thanks for writing it! At least I know I'm not totally crazy.

 

[flatfinger]

When using glens approach , you can take care of any transients that are going to make settings for a compressor a little more challanging later on.
I look at how long they are , if there shorter than 10 ms , you can usually nuke'm with impunity! (usually)

 

[masteringhouse]

Glen's approach definitely has merit, and is often taken care of another way. When I look back at G's reasoning it reminds me of the approach I've seen many mix engineers use for employing something like an SSL bus comp at a ratio of 10 to tame those sort of transients, just nipping the top of the mix.

In mastering my feeling is that an "averaging" comperssor should be reacting to the overall final mix. If there are surgical fixes that need to be done, for example a heavy bottom, unbalanced frequency, click/pop etc., these should be done earlier in the chain rather than having the compressor react to them and remove them later. It doesn't make sense to me to have an averaging comp react to something that isn't present in the intended mix other than as an effect (there are always exceptions). This is also why an EQ usually comes before compression. OTOH comps used for de-essing, to help bring out a part in the mix, etc., would come earlier in the chain since these are used to slightly "remix". Having to adjust the threshold of a de-esser or multiband (as Freudian Slip mentioned) everytime you change level or frequency balance from a prior device doesn't make as much sense in worflow efficiency as getting it right and leaving it set.

Getting back to large transients, if they are there because of a drummer wanting to make a point, it's something that I personally wouldn't remove before the comp since it is part of the mix and the comp should be reacting to it in a similar way. If it's something annoying or problematic for technical reasons, "off with its head".

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

In mastering my feeling is that an "averaging" comperssor should be reacting to the overall final mix. If there are surgical fixes that need to be done, for example a heavy bottom, unbalanced frequency, click/pop etc., these should be done earlier in the chain rather than having the compressor react to them and remove them later. It doesn't make sense to me to have an averaging comp react to something that isn't present in the intended mix other than as an effect (there are always exceptions).
...
Getting back to large transients, if they are there because of a drummer wanting to make a point, it's something that I personally wouldn't remove before the comp since it is part of the mix and the comp should be reacting to it in a similar way. If it's something annoying or problematic for technical reasons, "off with its head".

These two paragraphs sum it up very well, IMHO. It comes down to the definition of what is a "fix" versus what is a "modification".

What I call "runaway" transients (extreme transients that appear after summing) are not an intentional or desired part of the program material, and knocking then down is a "fix". OTOH, the drum hit with an exclamation point that Tom mentions is an intentional and purposeful part of the program; taming that is part of polishing the sound.

Though I still might look at that hit in the 2mix and - if it were several dB above the rest of the peaks to stick out as abnormal - I still might consider manually pulling that peak back a couple of dB as if it were a runaway.

That would be purely a judgement call based upon the exact situation, though. The ears and the mix have to tell me what to do there.

G.

 

[Reds Garage]

Thanks for the advice guys, I took some of it tried to do a 'mastering' of the mix myself, and it sounds alright. I'm still learning how to use compressors effectively without taking to much away from the natural sound, and I'm pretty sure there are some frequency issues in my room. (anyone know of a site that explains how to test a room for standing waves?) I am definitely limited by lack of experience in this area, as well as recording itself, but then you're always learning something anyways it seems! So after listening over the next few days we (the band) decided it was probably worth it to get someone else to do it. I'll be sitting in with him to try to learn some techniques, and hopefully walk away with something I can be happy with. When all is said and done I'll post some of the tunes for an A-B type comparison. Thanks again!!

 

[Decipha]

red... send me a copy of the track and I'll do a quick mix job on it and send it back to you, i prefer 320 mp3 send via putstuff or lightningmp3

oh and BTW do send me a PM when you do get a link posted, I don't usually follow threads