Mastering??

[JonPaulP]

When I listen to professionally-done recordings, it has this special sound - a very full, sort of 3 dimensional sound, so to speak. Is this what mastering basically does? Taking a good recording and giving it that polished sound?

If so, how do I even begin to start mastering. Can I do this within Cubase? Is mastering basically just EQing the completed wav file, or is there something else to it?

 

[AliBrown]

EQing is part of it. normally a multi-band compressor is also used and the track normalized as well (or limited and the volume boosted). there are probably more stages as well but they are the parts that i no about. iv also been told before, that it take years to become really good at mastering so don't expect amazing results first time, but thats true with anything i guess.

and yeh you can do it within cubase if you have the right plug ins, but there are specific mastering programs like wavelab or sound forge.

 

[Massive Master]

When I listen to professionally-done recordings, it has this special sound - a very full, sort of 3 dimensional sound, so to speak. Is this what mastering basically does? Taking a good recording and giving it that polished sound?

To some extent, yes. But to a large extent, a great sounding recording is going to sound great before it gets here. The greatest, most experienced mastering engineer in the world with the greatest gear in the world is limited by the potential of the mixes he's given.

Consider the average "professionally done" recordings are made with teams of people with aggregate decades of experience, usually working with relatively high-quality gear, almost always with a high-quality monitoring chain in a relatively accurate space. Great recordings don't just happen...

If so, how do I even begin to start mastering. Can I do this within Cubase?

This is a loaded question that will --- I don't even want to go there...

You don't just "start mastering" -- If your mixes aren't to your liking, you're not done mixing yet. That said - Most "not happy with" mixes are "not happy" from the very start with the capturing of the core sounds.

Is mastering basically just EQing the completed wav file, or is there something else to it?

You could say there's much more to it.

normally a multi-band compressor is also used and the track normalized as well

There are two things that rarely ever happen during the mastering phase for example.

First and foremost, the mastering process begins with listening objectively - and doing what the mixes tell you to do. You should have done your part of that during the tracking phase. Then again during the mixing phase.

Mastering is about taking a collection of mixes and preparing them for replication. Yes - sonic changes can be and usually are made. Yes, final levels are established. Yes, "tweaking" is done. Hopefully, the positive is enhanced and the negative is reduced.

But if you're mixing - if you're not doing what the mix is telling you to do at that point, then it isn't going to just start telling you things when you have control only over the 2-buss. If your mixes lack dimension and focus, the mastering phase is far too late to start concentrating on such things.

 

[JonPaulP]

Thanks for the replies AliBrown and Massive Master.

I took a look at the mastering template on Cubase and found that the main feature it had was an EQ graph. I tried it on something I'm working on, and the mix sounded pretty good. The EQ did give the overall sound a litttle punch.

So, I guess mastering isn't that complicated as I thought and I should concentrate more on the mix itself?

 

[Massive Master]

I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "not that complicated..." But that's for another thread...

No doubt though, get the mix you want during the mix. Get the sounds you want at the source. The most important decisions made during the recording process are the ones made before the "RECORD" button is ever pressed for the first time. And the potential of every "next" step is limited by the one before it.

 

[Richard Monroe]

OK, this is my spin on it. Although I don't like to put words in other people's mouths, there is a lot I think Massive Mastering would say if he wasn't basically a nice guy. It's easier for me, because I am *not* a mastering engineer, unlike John. Although there are many steps to a finished professional recording, they are generally broken down into 3 phases- tracking, mixing, and mastering. Each phase depends on the work done in the previous phases.

If you give John, or anyone else, a poor performance, badly tracked, and badly mixed, he will do a ton of work to make it sound a tiny bit better. If you give him a good mix of a well tracked excellent performance, he will do a very small amount of work to make it sound a lot better.

What I read between the lines is a two part answer. The first part, simply put, is- garbage in-garbage out. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The second part, simply put, is- you have to walk before you can run. The truth is that it makes no sense to try and learn mastering without a whole lot of experience mixing, and it makes no sense to try and learn mixing without a whole lot of experience tracking. It's like saying, "Houses designed by great architects have this really cool appearance, you know like- finished. I went to Home Depot, and they showed me that this is done by driving nails into boards, and then covering it with paint. I got a nail gun, and it drives nails pretty good, so now I'm ready to start designing houses, right?"

I found the process very interesting in making my first album. I took 2 years learning to track it, to the best of my limited abilities. Then it went to a perfectly good mixing engineer, who did a bunch of stuff that I really liked, and a few things I was not so fond of. Then it went to a badass mastering house, and damned if the mastering engineer didn't use sophisticated EQ to take a pretty good stab at undoing the few things the mixing engineer did that I didn't like. This is what I call "EQ wars". In the end, I think the mixing and mastering engineers had a somewhat different vision of what the album should sound like, and I needed to give *my* input at every step. As the producer, I had my own vision. One track had to go back for re-mastering, because the mastering engineer needed to have my vision explained to him a little better. In the end, there was a tremendous benefit in having new ears hear the music at each step. I believe that the mixing engineer and the mastering engineer should not be the same person. After you've listened to an album for 80 hours or more, it is very hard to hear it with new ears.

In short, if you have a good recording, and you like the mix, send it to a good mastering house, and it is likely to be improved. It doesn't cost that much. It is not meaningful to ask how you can do what a person with many years of recording experience, a ton of gear, and a half-million dollar mastering room would do to your music. And the main reason is not the gear, the room, or even the experience. It is because he is not *you*. Good luck-Richie

 

[JonPaulP]

OK, this is my spin on it. Although I don't like to put words in other people's mouths, there is a lot I think Massive Mastering would say if he wasn't basically a nice guy. It's easier for me, because I am *not* a mastering engineer, unlike John. Although there are many steps to a finished professional recording, they are generally broken down into 3 phases- tracking, mixing, and mastering. Each phase depends on the work done in the previous phases.

If you give John, or anyone else, a poor performance, badly tracked, and badly mixed, he will do a ton of work to make it sound a tiny bit better. If you give him a good mix of a well tracked excellent performance, he will do a very small amount of work to make it sound a lot better.

What I read between the lines is a two part answer. The first part, simply put, is- garbage in-garbage out. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The second part, simply put, is- you have to walk before you can run. The truth is that it makes no sense to try and learn mastering without a whole lot of experience mixing, and it makes no sense to try and learn mixing without a whole lot of experience tracking. It's like saying, "Houses designed by great architects have this really cool appearance, you know like- finished. I went to Home Depot, and they showed me that this is done by driving nails into boards, and then covering it with paint. I got a nail gun, and it drives nails pretty good, so now I'm ready to start designing houses, right?"

I found the process very interesting in making my first album. I took 2 years learning to track it, to the best of my limited abilities. Then it went to a perfectly good mixing engineer, who did a bunch of stuff that I really liked, and a few things I was not so fond of. Then it went to a badass mastering house, and damned if the mastering engineer didn't use sophisticated EQ to take a pretty good stab at undoing the few things the mixing engineer did that I didn't like. This is what I call "EQ wars". In the end, I think the mixing and mastering engineers had a somewhat different vision of what the album should sound like, and I needed to give *my* input at every step. As the producer, I had my own vision. One track had to go back for re-mastering, because the mastering engineer needed to have my vision explained to him a little better. In the end, there was a tremendous benefit in having new ears hear the music at each step. I believe that the mixing engineer and the mastering engineer should not be the same person. After you've listened to an album for 80 hours or more, it is very hard to hear it with new ears.

In short, if you have a good recording, and you like the mix, send it to a good mastering house, and it is likely to be improved. It doesn't cost that much. It is not meaningful to ask how you can do what a person with many years of recording experience, a ton of gear, and a half-million dollar mastering room would do to your music. And the main reason is not the gear, the room, or even the experience. It is because he is not *you*. Good luck-Richie

How much does sending an album for mastering usually cost?

 

[RAMI]

OK, this is my spin on it. Although I don't like to put words in other people's mouths, there is a lot I think Massive Mastering would say if he wasn't basically a nice guy. It's easier for me, because I am *not* a mastering engineer, unlike John. Although there are many steps to a finished professional recording, they are generally broken down into 3 phases- tracking, mixing, and mastering. Each phase depends on the work done in the previous phases.

If you give John, or anyone else, a poor performance, badly tracked, and badly mixed, he will do a ton of work to make it sound a tiny bit better. If you give him a good mix of a well tracked excellent performance, he will do a very small amount of work to make it sound a lot better.

What I read between the lines is a two part answer. The first part, simply put, is- garbage in-garbage out. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The second part, simply put, is- you have to walk before you can run. The truth is that it makes no sense to try and learn mastering without a whole lot of experience mixing, and it makes no sense to try and learn mixing without a whole lot of experience tracking. It's like saying, "Houses designed by great architects have this really cool appearance, you know like- finished. I went to Home Depot, and they showed me that this is done by driving nails into boards, and then covering it with paint. I got a nail gun, and it drives nails pretty good, so now I'm ready to start designing houses, right?"

I found the process very interesting in making my first album. I took 2 years learning to track it, to the best of my limited abilities. Then it went to a perfectly good mixing engineer, who did a bunch of stuff that I really liked, and a few things I was not so fond of. Then it went to a badass mastering house, and damned if the mastering engineer didn't use sophisticated EQ to take a pretty good stab at undoing the few things the mixing engineer did that I didn't like. This is what I call "EQ wars". In the end, I think the mixing and mastering engineers had a somewhat different vision of what the album should sound like, and I needed to give *my* input at every step. As the producer, I had my own vision. One track had to go back for re-mastering, because the mastering engineer needed to have my vision explained to him a little better. In the end, there was a tremendous benefit in having new ears hear the music at each step. I believe that the mixing engineer and the mastering engineer should not be the same person. After you've listened to an album for 80 hours or more, it is very hard to hear it with new ears.

In short, if you have a good recording, and you like the mix, send it to a good mastering house, and it is likely to be improved. It doesn't cost that much. It is not meaningful to ask how you can do what a person with many years of recording experience, a ton of gear, and a half-million dollar mastering room would do to your music. And the main reason is not the gear, the room, or even the experience. It is because he is not *you*. Good luck-Richie

How much does sending an album for mastering usually cost?

Hehe....Hey, Richard...you get the feeling you just wasted your breath there?????

 

[iownrocknroll]

John Scrip, Great Stuff Man!

I am in no ways a mastering engineer, nor would I over call myself one, I am too subjective to do that kind of work.
I prefer producing, mixing, writing, getting sounds...that being, my first rule when choosing a mastering engineer is to find that will "do no harm".

Mastering is a whole nother animal.

I don't feel the person who; wrote, tracked, mixed and produced should even consider "mastering"
Having someone elses ears on your mix can do wonders, let alone their experience and gear.

Jon

 

[JonPaulP]

Hehe....Hey, Richard...you get the feeling you just wasted your breath there?????

LOL, he didn't waste his breath. He basically said that it's important to get someone else to do the mastering, so now I'm curious as to how much a typical mastering job is.

 

[Dogbreath]

LOL, he didn't waste his breath. He basically said that it's important to get someone else to do the mastering, so now I'm curious as to how much a typical mastering job is.

most of the time, you can send a mixdown to an ME, he'll do a quick mastering for ya and send it back so you can get a feel for it. I've done this and got some good feedback too.

Click on John's goodz...(Massive) and there's a lot of good info and pricing.

Luck man..........Kel

 

[Richard Monroe]

The cost of mastering will vary depending on who they are, who you are, and the length and complexity of the job. Fortunately, the less important you are, the less it costs (usually). If you are The Who, it costs a bundle (because you have got the money). Mastering, oddly enough, doesn't take as long as mixing, as a rule, and most houses charge by the hour. Generally, I've seen rates of $50-$100 per hour, and most mastering guys will take about an hour per song. I think my first album was mastered for about $600 for 13 songs, and I considered that very reasonable. As far as what the going rates are, you can check with mastering houses on line. Usually, one of the bigger names on the board, such as Massive Mastering, will take pity on the poor and cut you a package deal. My advice would be to send them one song, and see how you like the results. If it works out OK, then negotiate a price for the whole CD. That way, he knows what he's agreeing to do, and you know what you're likely to get.-Richie

 

[JonPaulP]

Thanks everyone for the responses! I think I have a better understanding of the mastering process now.

 

[clevodrummer]

the secret to mastering...sshhh...

ok, i will let it out and not take it to the grave..

here is the secret to mastering and getting the best sound for all of your songs on your CD hit record..

1. get a mixer like mine, a yamaha mg/16 fx

2. get the blue one if you can

3. on this mixer is onboard reverb.

4. pick: "vocal echo" I think its number nine.

5. turn up all of the effect pots on each channel to maximum

6. turn up the parameter dial on maximum.

7. Apply this specific reverb to ALL OF THE SONGS FOR THE CD.

8. Thats it. It is now mastered and will flow like a canoe on the Cuyahoga.

9. Keep this secret between only us on HR.

10. you now have the Sgt. Pepper you have been dreaming about.

 

[solaris1982]

Thats it. It is now mastered and will flow like a canoe on the Cuyahoga.

Dude...I live near the Cuyahoga. Canoes don't float on it...scum does. Then it catches on fire.

 

[Chili]

Another tip not related to canoes or scummy rivers....

...when shopping around for a Mastering Engineer, ask what their price would be if their 2nd engineer or apprentice did the job. He'll be less expensive, but still using the same equipment and listening room (which are important!) and the studio owner won't let anything out the door without his approval on it.

And I will always recommend giving the first look at the mastering engineers who frequent the boards here at HR. They take the time to help us newbs and amateurs out with our inane questions and then week after week, reiterate what exactly it is that they do.

They're not allowed to tout their own business without paying for advertising space, but their clients can talk freely about them. The first two that come to mind are John @ Massive Master and Tom @ Mastering House.

peace.

 

[tateros]

Sorry to bump this subject, but:

I've read around audiophile forums & fatigue causing headphones seem to be as common a subject as "best preamp for under $500". This has made me wonder...

Aside from a sub-par set of cans, could it be because the music wasn't mastered well, or at all? Do ME's focus on any fatiguing frequencies & do they even exist? I mean, I know there are obvious frequencies that sound annoying when bumped up, but are there any specific "pheromone frequencies" that ME's look for? If so, can someone list the frequency points on the EQ spectrum that one should pay special attention to & not allow to get above a certain range?

 

[Richard Monroe]

Yep, there are fatiguing frequencies alright- all of them, and any smart engineer knows when he's had enough for the day. When it all starts to sound like mush, it's time to rest your ears. As I understand it, the primary use of EQ in mastering is to first, attenuate any frequencies that are not part of the music, namely, noise. Then, it is to separate sources that are trying to occupy the same sonic space. A speaker can only produce one A440 at a time. But, every tone of every instrument is made of of multiple frequencies. The primary frequency, and all of the associated overtones. So you can have a "bright" A440 and a "dark" A440. When 2 sources share a lot of overtones, they can be difficult to separate. I have that problem with one of my longtime backing vocalists (actually, more often than not, I'm *her* backing vocalist). We share so many overtones in common, and have such a similar vibrato, that mixing and mastering engineers attenuate and boost very narrow frequency bands to pull our voices apart. The result is that you hear two voices singing tight harmony, rather than one very fuzzy voice. It's one of the best things the mixing and mastering people did for us on my CD. It's one of the reasons we always use different mics when we perform live, because it has the same effect, to pull us apart a little. The same thing can happen to two instruments, or even a vocalist and an instrument. EQ is not just used to make each track sound good, but to carve out acoustic space for each track to live in.-Richie

 

[Dags]

ok, i will let it out and not take it to the grave..

here is the secret to mastering and getting the best sound for all of your songs on your CD hit record..

1. get a mixer like mine, a yamaha mg/16 fx

2. get the blue one if you can

3. on this mixer is onboard reverb.

4. pick: "vocal echo" I think its number nine.

5. turn up all of the effect pots on each channel to maximum

6. turn up the parameter dial on maximum.

7. Apply this specific reverb to ALL OF THE SONGS FOR THE CD.

8. Thats it. It is now mastered and will flow like a canoe on the Cuyahoga.

9. Keep this secret between only us on HR.

10. you now have the Sgt. Pepper you have been dreaming about.

ROFLMAO!!!
Gold, dude

There's a mastering engineer I know who will hate finding out he's been doing it all wrong
Thanks for the laugh

Dags

 

[legionserial]

Sorry to bump this subject, but:

I've read around audiophile forums & fatigue causing headphones seem to be as common a subject as "best preamp for under $500". This has made me wonder...

Aside from a sub-par set of cans, could it be because the music wasn't mastered well, or at all? Do ME's focus on any fatiguing frequencies & do they even exist? I mean, I know there are obvious frequencies that sound annoying when bumped up, but are there any specific "pheromone frequencies" that ME's look for? If so, can someone list the frequency points on the EQ spectrum that one should pay special attention to & not allow to get above a certain range?

That's not really quite how it works.

Although there are frequencies that can probably damage your ears more than others, I think the ear fatigue a lot of people talk about in the same subject as mastering is the whole loudness thing.

Commercial recordings end up being heavily compressed to make them louder. Basically what they do is decrease the dynamic range. Bringing the loud bits closer to the volume of the quiet bits. If you look at the waveforms for a lot of modern recordings, it's virtually a block of color, as opposed to the set of peaks and waves it should be.

What this means is that your ears are subjected to a constant barrage of sound. As a result, they get tired pretty quick.

It's worth doing a search for 'loudness wars'. It's an interesting topic that's worth reading about. A lot of people these days want their stuff to be as loud as commercial stuff, but they don't realise the sacrifices that are made as a result of doing that. Music sounds a hell of a lot better when it's not being crammed into your ears like sardines.

Ever sat listening to an album and found yourself gradually turning it down more and more throughout? If so, that's your ears getting tired. If you go back the next day with fresh ears and listen to it at the last volume you had it at you'll probably think "shit, was I really listening to it that quiet?". That's how tired yor ears got, you had to turn it down to a ridiculous level to be comfortable. Half the time I have to turn the music off entirely before I get through a whole CD these days.