Mastering Tips

M

MrBlackthorne

Funkmaster
Hey All,

I'm working on a big EP project in my home studio. I have four songs mixed that I am very happy with. Now, because I am a glutton for punishment, and also because I'm poor, I am trying to master it (decently). So far, the mastered tracks sound pretty good on my monitors. The CD sounds great in my home stereo (Sony w/ Bose speakers). But in my average boom-box and car stereo, it just isn't balanced enough for any human tolerance. The bass guitar notes don't ring through, and muddy up some parts while being complete transparent in other parts. The vocals ring through OK with the right EQ, but at the cost of losing some of the rhythm instruments. I'm not too concerned with getting it ultra-hot. I'd rather have it sound polished than loud, but it should compete well with other CD's.

The kicker is that there is one track on the EP - you know the one - that sounds so damn good, that it makes the rest of the CD sound like dirt. The only way I've found to make the whole CD sound uniformly decent is to dull that one down (which is really a shame).

My problem is that I'm pretty good at mixing, but really lousy with the ins-n-outs of mastering. Most web tutorials are a little too basic for my needs. Do you guys have any tips that might help me clear up some of these problems?

My setup is a Tascam US-428 interfaced with Cubase VST. I'm using Steinberg Mastering Edition plugs and the Waves series of Compressors/Limiters...

Thanks in advance for the help!

Rick
 
Interesting....

You claim to be pretty good at mixing, yet, you also state that not all the songs in your collection have a similar sound.

You also claim that you are happy with your mixes, yet, they don't sound all that great on an average boom box.

I am confused.

You mix is not anything unless it can translate well, and compete somewhat favorably with commercial recordings (one done by artists on major labels) if commercial recordings are what you are trying to emulate. Obviously, you are not that happy with the mixes because you believe that mastering is going save your hide here.

I have mastered a little. I can tell you that well mixed songs master fairly easily. I have found that only minor tweeks in eq (cut of boost of less then 3db in any band that is less then an octave) and slight compression (never more then about 2 or 3 db) and slight limiting (at most 5db of gain reduction on the peaks that jump out) does the trick if all the songs were mixes well.

Remix. Consider that the average person is going to listen to your songs on a boom box, and your mix should sound good on one.

Good Day!
 
Re: interesting

Sound Cracker,

Thanks for the reply. The mix, without any mastering work, sounds great in any stereo. It just lacks the "competitive levels" and "polished sound" that mastering could bring to it. More correctly, I'm screwing it up by trying to master it, because I don't know what I'm doing. There really isn't any good resources that I've found that give tips for mastering.

Each song has it's own "sound" due to differences in mic selection, placement, and overall ambience of the recordings. The one song that sounds particularly good, sounds that way because of the way it was recorded in comparison to the others, not the mixing. This is simply a diverse selection of music, and it is the type of song it is. It is my understanding that mastering also works as an aid to bring some uniformity to whole record. I'm just not sure of how to accomplish that. I'll try some of your tips and see if I can work it out.

I'd love to give out mixes straight off the board, but you know how everyone hates to move the volume knob, nowadays.

Rick
 
If you dont have decent levels on the mix, there may be some issues to resolve before mastering....while mastering engineers ARE magicians (in a sense), you have to give them something to work with.....

quote from Pat Kirtley in HomeRecording magazine..."Any mastering engineer will tell you that the task of CD mastering can fall into one of two categories: either preserving beautiful mixes, or trying to salvage aweful ones."......
 
BTW, that article was in the April 2001 issue, "CD Mastering for Dummies"....no offense....

The first sentence read "Here is a primer on mastering for people who should know better than to try it"
 
I know that some of you won't like my comments on mastering, but hey! you're here to get opinions right?

Every time I hear people say "I'm mastering it myself", I cringe and reserve comment. Mastering is an art in itself, and unfortunately has somewhere along the line gotten a bad rap lately.
Lets face it, mastering facilities don't excist for nothing.
So, just say "I will try and make it sound as good as possible", and then you are being realistic.
Mastering requires special skills, special equipment, an outstanding acoustic environment, a lot of experience, and above all, brilliant, trained ears.

To ilustrate the last bit above, an interesting anecdote.
An old mastering engineer in Europe used to tell us "if I hear the first part of the first verse of a song, I know who's mixed it, so I stop and hook up the gear I will need". We decided to put this to the test when 6 of us mixed a total of 11 songs for a non-profit record. We each did our individual mixes, and after that a collegue and I got together to go over the final mixes and made some adjustments to them, to ensure the whole album had a uniform "feel" to it. From the master reel we recorded a seperate reel, with the first 30 seconds of each song. In the mastering studio, we put him in his chair, gave him a pen and a piece of paper, played the tape, and told him to prove his stuff. Apart from 2 of us, he did not know who had worked on the record. In most cases he told us to spool forward after just over 10 seconds. When finished he just smiled, gave us the paper and said "I don't make mistakes". Not only was every engineer correctly identified, on the bottom it read: I think you 2 bastards remixed tracks 3,4 and 8 to try and fool me.
Now that was a mastering engineer, he was also one of the best.

Of cause you could say I'm bias, because I have worked as a mastering engineer. But, when I'm finished with a project, I send it away to be mastered. The biggest compliment anyone can give me as an engineer is when a known mastering engineer tells me "we didn't have to do a lot". (rare - most of the basterds prefer to tell you only what was wrong :>).

Which leads me in to the next thing. Mr.Blackthorne, if you don't yet have a uniform sounding product, listen to the stuff you're happy with and go back to the songs that don't sound as good - start mixing again. You're finished mixing when everything sounds good and you're happy with every song. It might mean that you have to go track-by-track, cross reference and make adjustments. Many albums have songs on them that are recorded in different ways and different places, it just takes more time mixing to get uniformity. With the tools and plug-ins you have got, its possible.

Sorry if you think the above sounds arrogant, I've just been at it for a long time.
 
Thanks, sjoko2...

I agree. If I had the cash on hand, I would send this thing out to be mastered by a pro. When I finally finish the whole album (this is an EP selection of the upcoming CD), I will probably do that.

I went back and remixed some of the songs. I mostly just changed some levels and compression in the bass guitar, and vocals... It sounds cleaner, and the whole mix does sound better. Everyone that has listened to the CD has said it sounds pro. (Those of us with trained ears and lousy equipment know better.. haha). But it does sound good. And when it hits radio this weekend, their compressors will just kill it anyway, so who cares?!

Still, I find it so funny that one track can just sound so great with no adjustments. I literally recorded it, threw up the faders, and it sounded great. Added in some pad instruments, and it was done. I wish they were all that easy! Haha...

Thanks for the input! I appreciate it.

Rick
 
To any of you who think you can JUST master something on your own.....

I think the rather finely worded and detailed post above by sjoko2 is a MUST read!!! Almost sounds like me posting, except I don't have any hit records on my resume......:) I only hope that many of you will take his words to heart in making your production decisions.

Ed
 
man,

Sjoko, your story was an eye-opener. I had read somewhere before, where a mastering engineer could tell you what monitors you used for mixing, and when put to the test, he was correct.

Mastering is WOW.

How can they tell this though, is it because of their monitoring system/ environment?

What I am asking is? If you put an average joe with logic and plugins in a mastering room, with mastering monitors, will he be able to turn out a polished mix based solely on the fact that his monitoring system is telling him the absolute truth, and even blowing up details that need to be blown up.

If this is the case, then we don't put enough emphasis on monitoring.
 
Difficult question.

I think I can best answer it this way. Like everyone else my age, I have some hearing loss. A miracle it isn't more, as I used to do a lot of live sound, for bands which were known to be 'the loudest', in the 70's.
Despite this, I can hear things on tracks nobody else seems to hear. The slightest little, click, pop, noise that shouldn't be there, I'm right on top of it. Also, a couple of collegues whom are without any question amongst the world's top engineers, have considerable hearing loss, despite this, they are brilliant at their jobs.
The answer is simple really - your ears get 'trained', like everything else in / on your body. If you don't use your muscles, they disappear. If you don't use your ears.......
Do it for long enough, and you get to recognise what sound means what, what mix has been done on what monitor etc.

I think that also answers the second part of your question. The answer is no. Its a question of learning and being blessed with some aptitude to do the job. And like always, there are people who are good at it, mediocre at it, and there are those who would never be able to do it.

Of cause, the more accurate your monitoring system, the more accurate your listening space, the more of an advantage you'll have.

Another little story. A year ago I took part in a marketing excersize for one of the largest speaker system manufacturers. A room with some good musicians, a small PA and monitoring system, a small rack with a reverb and that's all.
They selected some of their employees, one teacher who did sound at his school, 2 people who did sound at churches, and a mix of others, 8 in total, all with some, but not a lot off, experience. Called in one by one, people were briefed on the system, asked if they understood how everything worked, asked to set up a mix and a monitor mix, and stop when they were totally happy with the result. The musicians tried to stay composed throughout it all, but at one stage, after someone said he was 'happy with the mix and couldn't see how he could improve it anymore' - the keyboard player fell of his seat in hysterical laughter, it took us at least 15 minutes before we could carry-on.
My job was to take notes with 2 other people from the company, and at the end of the day all people who took part were asked into the room again, where I set-up a mix from scratch, which sounded substantially better than anything else that day, in about 2 minutes flat.
Was that because I'm so brilliant? NO!!! Its just my job, I know what I'm doing, and I also know that I do have a gift for it, thank goodness. The only other person who made it sound pretty reasonable was an acountant from the company, who had NEVER done anything like it before. He had obvious talent, and a damn good set of ears.

Here's a good one - what do you think was the purpose of the above exersize?
 
I am thinking it was to test the idiot factor of the system.....:) What was the purpose of the test?

I too agree that engineering is a talent. Not everyone is going to be good at it. I know guys here in town who can get a great sound on tape, but wouldn't know where to begin in mixing. I have heard their mixes and frankly they were aweful. Good tracking engineer, lousy mixing engineer.

I have been working on mastering for some time now. I think I mix much better then I master. But, I have been paid to master and the clients have generally been pleased with the results. But, I still don't think I am as good at it as I am in mixing.

sjoko2, your point about being able to set a better mix in 2 minutes then all those other people could really does illustrate that mixing is indeed a talent, and that you also need to "train" your ears to know what to listen for.

I have made that statement several times, that you have to "learn how to listen" in the studio. I am tickled that you are reinforcing this concept. I can't count how many times clients have been happy with a mix after just 30 minutes of working at it. I usually burn that mix and play it for them later, AFTER we spent at least 4 or 5 or 12 hours on the mix. They are amazed that they thought the early mix was good. Are they deaf? No, they just don't know what they are listening to.

I too catch those little noises that other don't seem to hear. I go into another club that I used to work at a lot and will say to the soundman "Are you going to take care of that 2kHz tone that is feeding back"? They usually don't hear it until I go to the house eq and bump the freq about 2 or 3dB and of course they THEN hear it feeding back! :) But I heard it 3dB lower then that.

Anyway, it really all does illustrate that you need talent and training to be good at audio engineering. This is one of the many places you can get a bit of "training", but you either have the talent or you don't. I don't feel it is any different then musical talent. I have heard a lot of "good" musicians, but usually hear the best on major label CD's. I may not like their music, but I can hear their superior talent in a second!

I was being interviewed for a local magazine once and the reporter claimed she could hear the difference between music that was tracked onto analog and digital, even with it being on CD. I put her to the test.

She got every single one right, and I even threw her a curve ball. I played her a CD I mixed for a band that did their original tracking on analog, then we dumped it to ADAT to mix. She said on that one that it was originally analog, but probably converted to digital in some way before mixing. I was simply blown away. This lady was not an engineer and claimed to not even spend that much time in studio except to interview the owners or engineers. Yet, she could be dead on accurate in knowing any recording whether it was digital or analog source. Amazing! I have fooled many local engineers who have worked on major label stuff with my ADAT recordings. They never think I actually recorded it on ADAT. So, this lady's ability to indentify the difference is truely amazing to me.

Anyway.

Ed
 
hehe You were right Ed - it was to try and find out what gave people difficulties, even after they were explained everything and said they understood.
Funny outcome. Everyone was petrified of setting input levels, touching master faders, pan anything. But they didn't mind EQ'ing the living daylights out of things.
Th mix I did was as least 3 x as loud as anything else, and it wasn't loud.
As a result the company developed an 'intelligent' sound system - so now you should know who it was :).

Learning to listen takes a lot of time and patience......
 
ALRIGHT MAN

SJOKO 2 SJOKO 2 SJOKO 2 SJOKO 2 SJOKO 2



I HAVE FOUND A GREAT BIG NEW RESPECT FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!


BRAVO!!!!!!


GREAT ADVICE !!!!!! TERRIFIC STORY!!!!!!


YEA BABY!!
 
SONUSMAN SONUSMAN SONUSMAN SONUSMAN


I HAVE FOUND A GREAT BIG NEW RESPECT FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!


BRAVO!!!!!!


GREAT ADVICE !!!!!! TERRIFIC STORY!!!!!!


YEA BABY!!
 
AUDIOPHILE TALK

You guys are sounding an awful lot like AUDIOPHILES.......................

I won't tell anybody though.


HAVE A GREAT DAY!


Love,

SEAN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top