Need advice on mastering

[windbuks]

I need to get some mastering done to my tracks, it's becoming quite obvious that no matter how much fiddling I do with the tracks or how good my soundcard is that it's just never gonna sound like a consumer-ready product. I produce mostly tech-house on FLStudio but my point is that I don't want to take my material to a professional to master if I can manage it myself, but is there really software available that can do a professional job for me (I'm thinking Steinberg Wavelab here) If you're thinking, well - Wavelab is not the kind of program you just master overnight, I am quite aware of that, but I'm very much up for the learning curve and the price. All I need to know is if it is worth the investment or if there is any better software solutions out there.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

...my point is that I don't want to take my material to a professional to master if I can manage it myself...

That's like saying, "I'd rather not pay for a Picasso if I can just paint it myself..."

The fact is, for professional results, you CAN'T manage it yourself. Mastering is a skill - actually an art on its own - one that takes years of development, so "managing it yourself" doesn't seem too likely. Again, that's if you want PROFESSIONAL results (and by "professional" I mean from the perspective of skills, not monetary compensation!)

 

[MichaelM]

I thought I'd have a hard time convincing the rest of my band to get the tracks that I recorded mastered. In the end we broke up and I didn't have to worry about it. But I will have to again with the new band, and I'm just going to show them some of the A/B comparisons on Massive Master's site. Listening to them today I coudn't believe what the original mixes sounded like, and I knew the benifits of mastering... I've messed around with different plugins like Ozone for cakewalk, but to be honest I wouldn't have a clue where to make good decisions that would make a nice sounding master. It's like learning to use Word. Just because you know how to use the program doesn't mean you will be able to write best selling novels like that.

 

[windbuks]

That's like saying, "I'd rather not pay for a Picasso if I can just paint it myself..."

The fact is, for professional results, you CAN'T manage it yourself. Mastering is a skill - actually an art on its own - one that takes years of development, so "managing it yourself" doesn't seem too likely. Again, that's if you want PROFESSIONAL results (and by "professional" I mean from the perspective of skills, not monetary compensation!)

Ok, let's just take my skills out of the loop and talk about the software itself - will a professional be able to generate the same results on software like Wavelab as he would on studio equipment?

 

[RD423]

No so you are better off paying someone else to do it. Just put it like this u can master something with the masterlink we use in our studio but Y? Don't know when we can send it to a pro mastering engineer and he can have it sound better than 3 recording engineers all working on the same project. They know what exactly they are listening for.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Ok, let's just take my skills out of the loop and talk about the software itself - will a professional be able to generate the same results on software like Wavelab as he would on studio equipment?

Yes and no... to a large degree, it's the skills that are more important than the tools.

However - many of the s/w tools available to the consumer are far below a professional ME's expected level of quality. No s/w can compete with a Massenburg or Weiss EQ, for example.

 

[Massive Master]

Windbuks: Listen to the Bear for he is wise and blue. Software is nothing more than a tool and does nothing on its own. "Quick job" software (T-Racks, Ozone, etc.) in the wrong hands normally does more harm than good. Hardware is still "King" in most M.E.'s books, and software is just a formality that's needed to get the data to a disc. That's not to say that there isn't some great software out there... But as a rule of thumb, never master your own mixes, and never master on the same system you recorded & mixed on. That's another thread...

MichaelM: Sorry to hear about your band. I hate to say that's a pretty common story. I used to work with a lot of bands who were going into the studio for the first time - I'd guess that 20-25% broke up before the project was done. And thanks for the comments! One of these days I'm going to have to add some more... One of these days...

 

[Teacher]

One of these days I'm going to have to add some more... One of these days...

If your Low on material, I have plenty

 

[masteringhouse]

Windbuks: Hardware is still "King" in most M.E.'s books, and software is just a formality that's needed to get the data to a disc. That's not to say that there isn't some great software out there...

John -

I'm not quite sure what you mean by hardware vs software in your argument. All digital hardware runs by software, and in most cases is the same algorithm used in it's plug-in counterpart (the Waves L2 being an example).

The issue is the quality of the software and how well it was designed, not if it's in a separate box or not.

 

[masteringhouse]

I need to get some mastering done to my tracks, it's becoming quite obvious that no matter how much fiddling I do with the tracks or how good my soundcard is that it's just never gonna sound like a consumer-ready product. I produce mostly tech-house on FLStudio but my point is that I don't want to take my material to a professional to master if I can manage it myself, but is there really software available that can do a professional job for me (I'm thinking Steinberg Wavelab here) If you're thinking, well - Wavelab is not the kind of program you just master overnight, I am quite aware of that, but I'm very much up for the learning curve and the price. All I need to know is if it is worth the investment or if there is any better software solutions out there.

Why is it not sounding like a consumer-ready product? Is it due to trying to compete with overall volume or is it the quality of the mix?

The best mixes need little in the way of mastering, just an objective ear and reference environment to "tweak" the mix, not change it drastically. I think that there's a general misunderstanding that mastering is going to make crap sound like gold. If it isn't there to begin with it, mastering can enhance, but still won't sound like a great commercial mix.

 

[sonusman]

windbuks, I have mastered several CD's for clients using Wavelab and Waves plugin's only. Most weren't complaining, but at the same time, they weren't paying $100-250 an hour for the mastering either!

I have mastered stuff through the good stuff too. Our only complaint was about price, but for these releases, the added little "edge" the great analog boxes provided was important to the production approach, so really, the expense of the $120 an hour mastering studio was not that big of a deal and factored into the cost of the production of the CD ahead of time.

So, what does that tell you? Well, nothing, about like what everybody else has said so far, as it concerns your initial question.

You stated that you don't want to pay a mastering house to do this work for you in your initital thread. This might be wise for your pocket book if you are just using this music for your personal enjoyment, or a limited release to "fans" of your music. An effective mastering job can be quite expensive, and for many guys, it is a production expense they can't afford. I mean, I am sorry, I can't send my client who can barely keep a downbeat, or is only going to sell about 30 copies of their CD's at the 5 gigs they will play before they breakup to Tom or John for a quaity mastering job!

Obviously, paying for mastering by a "pro" is not what you need or desire right now. What you "need" and desire is some advice on software so you can start trying to master your material yourself. Fair enough. The others on here should be ASHAMED of themselves for trying to convince you otherwise. I mean, I can list 100 good reasons why you should pay ME to mix your music instead of mixing it yourself, but that isn't going to stop you from mixing it yourself right? And it would make me look like a self serving ass trying to do so. SO, for the record, you SHOULD be paying me to mix your music! There, I have reduced to the norn today!

Wavelab will work alright for you. It has all the tools needed to "master" a CD. It's relative quality to other tools available are on the scale of "you get what you pay for". Stock out of the box, Wavelab includes some alright plugin's. Nothing stellar, but alright. It is a great place to start. If those plugin's don't serve you well, you can try some new plugin's.

I can say from experience that I can't get the kinds of results with plugin's that I can with high end analog units, but, the plugin's have created acceptable results for some of my clients!

Good luck.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I can say from experience that I can't get the kinds of results with plugin's that I can with high end analog units, but, the plugin's have created acceptable results for some of my clients!

Sure.... but the big difference is you already have the skills required to do the mastering job. Big difference over the novice who knows nothing about the mastering process and is convinced they can DIY - all the while, they're butchering their audio with s/w presets.

As I've pointed out, if the skills ain't there, it doesn't matter whether you use a $10 hammer, or a $100 hammer, your house is going to be built like shit!

If you have the skills, the $10 hammer will not stop you from building that house.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Non sequitir...... anyone notice...

...that the HR.com server still appears to be on daylight savings time?

 

[sonusman]

Sure.... but the big difference is you already have the skills required to do the mastering job. Big difference over the novice who knows nothing about the mastering process and is convinced they can DIY - all the while, they're butchering their audio with s/w presets.

As I've pointed out, if the skills ain't there, it doesn't matter whether you use a $10 hammer, or a $100 hammer, your house is going to be built like shit!

If you have the skills, the $10 hammer will not stop you from building that house.

Bruce, I didn't aquire the skillz sitting around this BBS reading your posts about how I should pay somebody to do a mastering job because I suck at it!



I can tell you from building shit too, that a $10 hammer isn't going to do!

Now, if the guy is going to give: mom, dad, girlfriend, dorkwad buddy that is his "fan" all a copy of his FruityLoops produced drivel, do you really think they are gonna sit down all around their boombox and critique the mastering job?

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Yes - but on a project someone plans to send out maybe is not the best time to be experimenting!

 

[masteringhouse]

You stated that you don't want to pay a mastering house to do this work for you in your initital thread. This might be wise for your pocket book if you are just using this music for your personal enjoyment, or a limited release to "fans" of your music. An effective mastering job can be quite expensive, and for many guys, it is a production expense they can't afford. I mean, I am sorry, I can't send my client who can barely keep a downbeat, or is only going to sell about 30 copies of their CD's at the 5 gigs they will play before they breakup to Tom or John for a quaity mastering job!

Totally in agreement with sonusman and have said similar things in other threads.

My point earlier was don't look to mastering to fix a bad mix. If you are going to do things yourself, first put the priority on creating the highest quality mix together, without that you're just gonna end up chasing your tail.

Audio goes through several stages of degradation in the production process, first by the mic and pres you choose, then in the medium that it's stored, then further processing in mixing, and lastly in mastering and duplication as a 16 bit 44.1K audio CD. The idea is to reduce the amount of distortion and degradation to the audio as much as possible at each stage in order to get a commercially viable product. If your mix sounds bad, it will sound like a "polished bad" even with the best of MEs.

So to answer your question, can you master with lower end software? Sure, if your mix is great. I've seen quite a few studios that work with Wavelab and seem to get great results. I've also gotten mixes from some folks who use less than optimal gear that sound better than studios with SSLs and a full rack of high end outboard gear. It's all in your skills as an engineer, or just getting lucky.

The following is an example of a mix done by Shelly Yakus (U2, Tom Petty, etc.) done before and after mastering.

http://www.masteringhouse.com/demos/

Are you going to hear a big difference? Probably not (especially of you listen to MP3s on a pair of computer speakers). Why? Because the mix is so good it hardly needs mastering.

That's what professional commercial quality is about.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Now, if the guy is going to give: mom, dad, girlfriend, dorkwad buddy that is his "fan" all a copy of his FruityLoops produced drivel, do you really think they are gonna sit down all around their boombox and critique the mastering job?

This I agree with 100%..........!

 

[sonusman]

I can hear it now.

"Honey, even though those 'beatz' are sort of dated, and have NO hope of ever getting a A&R guys notice, I am really unimpressed with the lack of compression in the band between 400Hz-2Khz. I think it colors the rest of the harmonic content is a way that in unflattering. Also, you really need to improve the RMS overall!"

"Thanks for the feeback mom. Maybe I should have followed Bruce Bears advice and paid the $1000 to have the CD I gave you mastered."

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Lol

That sounds about right!!!

 

[sonusman]

Peace out guys.

windbuks, go get Wavelab and get to work. Once you have a question about "why" you don't get the results Tom does, then we can talk about the other issues listed here. But, the fact remains that you can do alright with Wavelab and some plugin's.

I bet that if Tom took that same mix on his "demo" and used Wavelab/plugin's to do the mastering, then you compared that master with the master he did with his "cool" gear, you would be hard pressed to tell which was which.

Ed