Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Irritating frequencies are mix-dependent.
That said - 2.5kHz should be destroyed.
That said - 2.5kHz should be destroyed.
legionserial
New member
RE: My previous post. I completely got the wrong end of the stick and proceeded to ramble on about a bunch of irrelevant stuff. My apologies.
G
GeoffX
New member
Thanks to all you guys for all this great information.
perotis
New member
are there any free mastering programs that you guys would recomend checking out?
R
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
Mastering is not a program. It is an art, and a profession. Are there any good free doctoring programs? No. There are only medical textbooks. Reading them will help, but it will not make you a doctor. Do doctors use tools? Yes. Buying a good laryngoscope will not make you a doctor. The primary tools used by mastering engineers are their ears, the mastering room, the monitors, EQ, and compression, in that order. I would not recommend attempting mastering with any EQ or compression plugin at all, although there are some that do use them.
This is the sort of stuff mastering engineers are likely to use:
http://mercenary.com/eqs.html
http://mercenary.com/dynproc1.html
And without a ton of experience, a near-perfect room, and some killer monitors, the average person's chances of achieving good results, even if they had that kind of gear, would be *zero*. You *can't* plug a finished mix into a computer and push the button that says,"make it sound good, and please eliminate needless frequency bands."-Richie
This is the sort of stuff mastering engineers are likely to use:
http://mercenary.com/eqs.html
http://mercenary.com/dynproc1.html
And without a ton of experience, a near-perfect room, and some killer monitors, the average person's chances of achieving good results, even if they had that kind of gear, would be *zero*. You *can't* plug a finished mix into a computer and push the button that says,"make it sound good, and please eliminate needless frequency bands."-Richie
Chili
Site Moderator
Well said!!!
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I haven't used that 'reputation' thing in a long time...
perotis
New member
I fully understand your point. I was just wondering when it comes time to start down that road if there was a program that you would suggest. I've seen t-racks used, but wanted to know if there were any freeware/open source ones that would be a good tool.
R
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
I'll let Massive Mastering, or one of the other real Mastering engineers around here take their shot a T-racks. I'm ducking now-INCOMING!!!-Richie
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I'll admit - We (almost collectively) have cute nicknames for some programs - T-Wrecks, HairBall, Blow-Zone, etc.
It's not that the programs are inherently evil (although you can completely screw up a perfectly good mix in almost record time by using such "miracle cures"). Many of those are about marketing - not mastering. Maul-the-band compression (rarely used in mastering), "tube sound" garbage --
Take Ozone - Very cool tool if you know exactly what you're looking for - but so easily abused, and so much rope to hang yourself with, that even experienced engineers can get carried away with it if they're not careful. I know a few guys who use it for dithering, a guy who uses the EQ. I still have no idea what a "Mastering Reverb" is. Then there's T-Racks - They seem to have discovered MS processing (which any decent tracking engineer can tell you all about - It's so secret that 90% of mid/side-mono/stereo-sum/difference processing is done at the tracking level) [/sarcasm]. So know, instead of getting a dozen e-mails every week from people asking me "Is it true that (band X) used multi-band compression on (release x)?!?" Now I get e-mails that say "Is it true that all mastering engineers use mid-side processing every time they pour a cup of coffee?!?"
Start out with a simple parametric EQ and a simple compressor - Then do what the mix tells you to do. If you need such other processing, don't worry - The mix will tell you. If you don't hear what the mix is telling you, you shouldn't be working on it in the first place.
The problem is that if you're working on your own material, in all hope, the mix told you what to do while you were mixing...
In any case, overprocessing is the first (and worst) earmark of Rookiedom. Presets are the quickest route to overprocessing.
Listen, analyze, do. If you know how to listen, it's a very simple concept. If you don't, you can spit into the wind for months trying presets on processors that are doing more damage than good.
(Granted - This is all only about the processing portion of the mastering phase...)
It's not that the programs are inherently evil (although you can completely screw up a perfectly good mix in almost record time by using such "miracle cures"). Many of those are about marketing - not mastering. Maul-the-band compression (rarely used in mastering), "tube sound" garbage --
Take Ozone - Very cool tool if you know exactly what you're looking for - but so easily abused, and so much rope to hang yourself with, that even experienced engineers can get carried away with it if they're not careful. I know a few guys who use it for dithering, a guy who uses the EQ. I still have no idea what a "Mastering Reverb" is. Then there's T-Racks - They seem to have discovered MS processing (which any decent tracking engineer can tell you all about - It's so secret that 90% of mid/side-mono/stereo-sum/difference processing is done at the tracking level) [/sarcasm]. So know, instead of getting a dozen e-mails every week from people asking me "Is it true that (band X) used multi-band compression on (release x)?!?" Now I get e-mails that say "Is it true that all mastering engineers use mid-side processing every time they pour a cup of coffee?!?"
Start out with a simple parametric EQ and a simple compressor - Then do what the mix tells you to do. If you need such other processing, don't worry - The mix will tell you. If you don't hear what the mix is telling you, you shouldn't be working on it in the first place.
The problem is that if you're working on your own material, in all hope, the mix told you what to do while you were mixing...
In any case, overprocessing is the first (and worst) earmark of Rookiedom. Presets are the quickest route to overprocessing.
Listen, analyze, do. If you know how to listen, it's a very simple concept. If you don't, you can spit into the wind for months trying presets on processors that are doing more damage than good.
(Granted - This is all only about the processing portion of the mastering phase...)
Last edited:
Chili
Site Moderator
Thanks MM, I copied this post over to the Ultimate Newbies Sticky. ^^^
perotis
New member
for the next question....
I don't have access to a top of the line mastering room. I have a firepod fp-10. my PC, and and old stereo with some old (but really good) speakers. My idea for mastering on a setup like this would be to play a song from a CD that sounds close to the same style as my project, and try to adjust the EQ of my project to match the tone of the CD playing in the same system.
What are your thoughts on this approach?
I don't have access to a top of the line mastering room. I have a firepod fp-10. my PC, and and old stereo with some old (but really good) speakers. My idea for mastering on a setup like this would be to play a song from a CD that sounds close to the same style as my project, and try to adjust the EQ of my project to match the tone of the CD playing in the same system.
What are your thoughts on this approach?
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Epic fail.
Try to push a mix where it doesn't want to go and you'll be pushing it everywhere. You have to do what serves the mix. Making it sound like something it's not (and doesn't have the potential to be like) is a losing proposition every time.
Again - Listen. If you have to compare to a mix "that sounds good" then you don't know what sounds good in the first place.
I don't mean that to sound harsh - It's just the truth. The *FIRST* thing you need to learn in the entire recording realm is how to listen. Everything else is secondary.
You're not trying to build a sports car here - You're trying to detail it for an audience or a photo session. If you want a GTO and you have a Camaro, nothing is going to turn that Camaro into a GTO. You should've started with a GTO. If you're shooting for a particular sound, you should've been comparing recordings while you were tuning the drums and choosing which guitar amps to use.
Most certainly, you should learn your monitoring chain and work on listening skills. And you can certainly do that by listening to recordings (both good and bad) over time. But at the mastering phase, the model of the car is already decided. The color is already decided. The motor, the tires, the pinstriping, etc., already decided. The job is to make it look like it should be sitting on the showroom floor.
Try to push a mix where it doesn't want to go and you'll be pushing it everywhere. You have to do what serves the mix. Making it sound like something it's not (and doesn't have the potential to be like) is a losing proposition every time.
Again - Listen. If you have to compare to a mix "that sounds good" then you don't know what sounds good in the first place.
I don't mean that to sound harsh - It's just the truth. The *FIRST* thing you need to learn in the entire recording realm is how to listen. Everything else is secondary.
You're not trying to build a sports car here - You're trying to detail it for an audience or a photo session. If you want a GTO and you have a Camaro, nothing is going to turn that Camaro into a GTO. You should've started with a GTO. If you're shooting for a particular sound, you should've been comparing recordings while you were tuning the drums and choosing which guitar amps to use.
Most certainly, you should learn your monitoring chain and work on listening skills. And you can certainly do that by listening to recordings (both good and bad) over time. But at the mastering phase, the model of the car is already decided. The color is already decided. The motor, the tires, the pinstriping, etc., already decided. The job is to make it look like it should be sitting on the showroom floor.
CIRO
Eu mesmo
Irritating frequencies are mix-dependent.
That said - 2.5kHz should be destroyed.
Tks John- my room/monitors measurements tells me everything is good and relatively "flat" , but my ears (I know, as it should be , for the "curve") listen 2/3 k "jumping" out.
Should I go for my ears (as I suspect) and cut these frequencies then?
Tks!
Ciro
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I was more or less joking there. I'm hyper-sensitive to the "ex-girlfriend" range between 2 and 4kHz. Problem is that an awful lot of speakers cross-over around there also. Makes it a nasty situation if the crossovers aren't up to par.
That's really a tricky range to be messing around in... A half dB adjustment can make such a dramatic difference... If you're having consistent issues, it'd be worth having the room shot.
That's really a tricky range to be messing around in... A half dB adjustment can make such a dramatic difference... If you're having consistent issues, it'd be worth having the room shot.
CIRO
Eu mesmo
Last edited:
perotis
New member
I only came up with this idea from previous experiences recording w/o a 'reference' sound. I've gone through times where the song sounds great to my ears on the one system, but I burn a disc and pop it in another player (in the car, etc...) and it has too much bass, or too little, or the volume is totally different than the "real" disc that was just in the player... you get the idea. So maybe I should use a 'reference' disc during and earlier stage (tracking/mixing) just to have an idea of what to aim for?
Farview
Well-known member
I think you just sounded a little too much like you thought there was a particular way that commercial CD's sound. That approach is backwards. The mastering engineer will take the mix and make it sound as good as it can, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will sound like anything else.
There are no 'standards' to adhere to, it's all subjective. In my collection, I have hit records that are really thin and brittle sounding and other hit records that are all mud. if you get it to sound like what you think it should sound like, you've done your job.
R
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
Yo Parotis! you are doing great, because you have actually gotten Massive Mastering to give you his perspective, and I've come to believe that he is one of a few folks here that is the real deal. That aside, I think the question you have asked is more about mixing than mastering. Before the mastering engineer ever hears your recording, you need to have a mix that sounds good on your monitors, a high-end home stereo, a cheap home stereo, a boombox, a Walkman, an MP3 player, in studio headphones, and in mono.
If you are getting too much bass in the car, turn *up* the subwoofer on your monitors, if you have a separate sub. This will cause you to mix bass and kick *down*. Monitors with a good crossover are helpful there. Or- you have to turn the knobs on your ears. That is what I think Massive Mastering means, when he says to "know" your monitors. You have to know that your monitors don't produce enough bass, so you are cranking bass and kick to make it sound good, and getting your head blown off in the car.
It is essential to solve these problems by the relative level of the tracks, before you ever resort to EQ. I doubt it is the heavy bass of a violin that is doing this to you. You need to first know where the annoying sound is coming from. With bass, that's pretty obvious. It's harder with midrange frequencies- vocals? guitar?. That's why Massive hates 2.5K. Every time you use EQ, you take something away from the sound. You never add anything that wasn't there. EQ is the first line of attack of the "fix it in the mix" guys. If the recording is well performed, and well tracked, EQ becomes a handy tool for noise reduction, and for separating sources that are fighting for the same frequency band space. If you are using it to make something that sounds bad sound good, it's usually a losing battle. Go back, listen to the mix flat, and turn the bass and kick down. Then play it in the car. If it sounds good, go back and listen to it on your monitors. Accept that that is what you need to hear to get a good mix, and learn that sound. That's my take on it.-Richie
If you are getting too much bass in the car, turn *up* the subwoofer on your monitors, if you have a separate sub. This will cause you to mix bass and kick *down*. Monitors with a good crossover are helpful there. Or- you have to turn the knobs on your ears. That is what I think Massive Mastering means, when he says to "know" your monitors. You have to know that your monitors don't produce enough bass, so you are cranking bass and kick to make it sound good, and getting your head blown off in the car.
It is essential to solve these problems by the relative level of the tracks, before you ever resort to EQ. I doubt it is the heavy bass of a violin that is doing this to you. You need to first know where the annoying sound is coming from. With bass, that's pretty obvious. It's harder with midrange frequencies- vocals? guitar?. That's why Massive hates 2.5K. Every time you use EQ, you take something away from the sound. You never add anything that wasn't there. EQ is the first line of attack of the "fix it in the mix" guys. If the recording is well performed, and well tracked, EQ becomes a handy tool for noise reduction, and for separating sources that are fighting for the same frequency band space. If you are using it to make something that sounds bad sound good, it's usually a losing battle. Go back, listen to the mix flat, and turn the bass and kick down. Then play it in the car. If it sounds good, go back and listen to it on your monitors. Accept that that is what you need to hear to get a good mix, and learn that sound. That's my take on it.-Richie
Jack_Jones
New member
I usually leave the mastering to the pros. It's very arcane to me and I'd rather mix than master
