Mastering

  • Thread starter Thread starter pashop
  • Start date Start date
P

pashop

New member
Slightly off topic but important I think when it comes to being able to market your music next to the big boys
I’m assuming everyone knows about mastering. How many folks use a professional service and how many use a Finalizer or Plugins and what have your results been ?
I think we know what "Massive" does but maybe he can pipe in about the common issues with maximizing ....or in the words of Spinal Tap......going to 11
 
An impartial 2nd/3rd set of ears is absolutely essential in the final phases of a project........ that's where the ME is your best friend.
 
Yeah! What he said! :D

No, really - I don't even master my own mixes. Maybe for "general use" or radio versions, but the final phase... Let's just say that if I'm at the controls, there's another engineer present offering his thoughts also and it turns into a collaborative effort.

As far as particlular plugs & processors... I have and use a bunch or both. However, I never have any idea what I'm going to apply to any particular project until I'm listening to it.

Probably not the answer you were looking for, but that's the one I've got at this point.

Volume wise - Funny this should come up - I just finished a rant on another forum...

http://www.recordingproject.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=3761

John Scrip - www.massivemastering.com
 
So what you're saying is the musician/writer/preformer who records his own stuff and knows exactly what it wants to sound like should trust someone he doesn't know to master his work.

Does the mastering engineer change the sound to appeal to his tastes or does he really consider the wishes of the artist when he's doing his job? When would you deem it acceptable to tell the engineer you think it would be better a different way without pissing him off? Is it even advisable to say anything to him at all? I know how tempermental artist are!
 
Toonsmith said:
So what you're saying is the musician/writer/preformer who records his own stuff and knows exactly what it wants to sound like should trust someone he doesn't know to master his work.

Does the mastering engineer change the sound to appeal to his tastes or does he really consider the wishes of the artist when he's doing his job? When would you deem it acceptable to tell the engineer you think it would be better a different way without pissing him off? Is it even advisable to say anything to him at all? I know how tempermental artist are!
Click to expand...
A good mastering engineer has highly developed skills of critical analytical listening and has heard enough material on a day-to-day basis that he/she has a very solid handle on knowing where a project is sonically, and where it could/should be.

Think about it - for all the material you hear all the time - there is a common sonic balance that is generally adhered to. That "sonic standard" is provided by none other than the last link in the production chain.... the mastering engineers.

So while an ME will take your comments into account - he will also already have an excellent idea of what needs to be done to make you project sonically acceptable.
 
Bear is on target as usual...

Communication is key, though. I have a "checklist" on my site that I all but insist on having filled out for most projects. It gives me an idea of what the client thinks of it "as-is" so I know what direction to go in. Sometimes there's a blank pallette to mess with. Other times, it's a salvage op. Knowing what the client thinks vs. their expectations lets me know where to take it from there.
 
I posted a similar question in the mixing and mastering forum. I pushed the mastering guys buttons a bit to see how they would describe what they do. I have decided to do the best I can myself since it was all done at home anyway, but my ultimate conclusion is... If I were going to spend a decent amount of money recording a record then yes I would have it mastered. I want to learn the works of a studio, but it would take many years to know what they do about recording. They can bring out things you never new would sound so good. The best advice I got was that if you do a home recording, mastering would possibly bring out some things that you don't want to hear and the worse your recording the more time it will take to fix in mastering. Long story long, if you don't want to dish out the big bucks for the record don't dish out the big bucks for the master. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:


That "sonic standard" is provided by none other than the last link in the production chain.... the mastering engineers.

.....he will also already have an excellent idea of what needs to be done to make you project sonically acceptable.
Click to expand...


I think this used to be true and hopefully will be again in the near future. With everyone in their mother butchering audio quality for the sake of loudness via the L2 on the 2 bus and then handing it off to the ME's as if.... its going to get worse in the near term. I sometime feel spiteful. How about ME's start charging a Fee for mixes that arrive overcompressed/limited to the point the ME has no real headroom. Charge full price, slap on a fee and release it without mastering being done. It would only take a few of the big houses to do this before the labels start pulling the reigns back in on the mixers. In the "old" days a mixer knew what was acceptable to send to the ME and anything less was sent back because the cutter couldn't handle it. Im rambling now but It "Bears" repeating.

SoMm


Where is that L2 licensing form again???
 
Its all fun till someones bottom end falls off

Sorry folks we did slide way off the publicity thread but what the heck.
I have got projects mastered every way possible based on the clients budget and the truly sad fact is most people cannot tell the difference. As well both software and hardware manufacturers seem to be targeting the smaller project studio market with products that get better every year. In many cases people are giving the service away as part of an incentive to record.

With that in mind will ME's be forced to reduce rates and reduce overhead to survive?

At what point should the client go from mastering in the box to using a real ME?

Method of securing a mastering facility. In many of the major markets there are hundreds of people offering this service They may have a great website but how can you be sure your going to the right place and not just sending your music to someone with a Finalizer ?
 
Re: Its all fun till someones bottom end falls off

pashop said:
...With that in mind will ME's be forced to reduce rates and reduce overhead to survive?

At what point should the client go from mastering in the box to using a real ME?

Method of securing a mastering facility. In many of the major markets there are hundreds of people offering this service They may have a great website but how can you be sure your going to the right place and not just sending your music to someone with a Finalizer ?
Click to expand...

PREACH ON BROTHER!!!

I've downsized about as much as I can because of people with a PC, a Finalizer and a copy of WaveLab out there butchering recordings to death. It's sad...

When I started doing this, there were *maybe* six of seven places that offered mastering in the Chicago area. Now, just about every studio has a PC with SoundForge on it and a lot of them are just as guilty.

The REAL bee-otch is that many of them actually put in some really nice gear. However, the only setting that many of them understand is LOUD.
 
Alot of good information and advice. So when looking for an engineer don't take things at face value but stick your head in the door and see what's going on. And once you find someone then trust his ability and skill to get the job right.

So you want to keep your recording levels as high as you can don't compress, limit, add effects, etc.. you should let the engineer handle all of this. Right?

As an engineer would'nt you just want the artist to bring in just his raw tracks. Is this acceptable?
 
Toonsmith said:

As an engineer would'nt you just want the artist to bring in just his raw tracks. Is this acceptable?
Click to expand...

Presumably you mean 'raw mix' rather than raw tracks! Could lead to misunderstandings!
 
Im already confused.

This is a good thread. So since it was mentioned. What do you send, the raw tracks, bass, vocals, guitar, etc. Or the finalized song/track?

Im sure most MEs are very talented, but mixing is an art in itself. Just by adding a bit of reverb or a little delay can change the way that part of the song feels. It seems like a no win situation if you just send it off to a ME. Course Im not an expert.

My deal is I mix my beats on a sampler, useing raw internal wave forms and samples as well. Where would I go from there? I hear beats on soundclick that blow mine away in volume and some quality, but I know that gotta be adding a grip of compression to the stereo mix. When we mix a song, my dudes beats he makes on his pc are way louder than mine. I use hardware. When we mix the song as an entire thing, the vocals are seem to be too loud for the beat, with his beats the vocals are not loud enough. LOL, do we just suck. We use a Rode NTK to record with and I never let the levels of the vocals go over the 0 point, should we be doing somging different? My bad, maybe I should of started another thread, but there seems to be alot of good advice going on, just wanted to take advantage....................pm
 
If it's just a matter of volume (if you turn it up, is the sound quality similar? Does it just lack a little sparkle and punch?

If so, it probably just needs a good run through the garden (mastering).

If not, listen for what's really making the difference. EQ? Levels across the mix?

John -
 
Sorry 'bout that Glynb, raw mix is what I meant to say. Sometimes my fingers go faster than my mind on this damn computer.

Thanks to Massive Master for the Guide To Mixing. I now know the true meaning of mastering, and what I don't know about the true meaning of mastering. The light bulb went on! Bing!

One thing on your Checklist though, you should have a mark box that says 'I don't know what the f*#% I'm doing and need all the help I can get'.
 
Toonsmith said:
Thanks to Massive Master for the Guide To Mixing. I now know the true meaning of mastering, and what I don't know about the true meaning of mastering. The light bulb went on! Bing!
Click to expand...

That's good - Because you just confused me! :D
 
Massive Master said:
If it's just a matter of volume (if you turn it up, is the sound quality similar? Does it just lack a little sparkle and punch?

If so, it probably just needs a good run through the garden (mastering).

If not, listen for what's really making the difference. EQ? Levels across the mix?

John -
Click to expand...

Was that to me? Either way, my beats do lack a punch. For an example, I will turn on the over all mastering effect on my sampler and I can get the beat to come threw way louder with more solid bass and crisper highs. But I dont use this over all mastering on the beat in fear it may complicate pro mastering down the road. The sampler does not have individual eqs for each sequenced track. Just two effects engines, a compressor/eq for each song/pattern, and an over all mastering effect.

If I use my beats the way they are in their current stage, then we would have to bring the vocals down to match the feel of the beat. So by the time we get done mixing down a few songs, some songs will sound a lot louder than others. Does this seem to be a problem, or can this be fixed. I am just trying to avoid problems down the road. When I mix my beats I use compression on the kicks and sometimes basses, but I dont want to over do it. Any help from here or suggestions? Thanx, pm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top