Noob Dilema: Buy Mastering Software or hire studio?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dadgad
  • Start date Start date
D

Dadgad

New member
Hello, I've searched but couldn't find any (recent) threads to help me. I have a CDs worth of fingerstyle acoustic guitar instrumentals I want to master, or, rather, improve the tone of each track. The recording quality isn't bad, but as typical with bare steel string guitar recordings, it lacks "presence".

I'll be making CD-Rs for friends and family but it won't be a money maker for me so I don't want to pay a lot to have a studio add reverb, eq, delay, etc. I know there are other things involved with "mastering" a CD at the studio level, but since it won't be for sale I'm only concerned with improving the tone. The software applications seem complicated and expensive. I use Audacity to edit, and the H4n to record (with external mics). Are there any inexpensive, all-in-one applications that would include reverb and delay? Without having to use plug-ins that are not already bundled? Audacity plug-ins aren't working for me.
any help aprreciated
thanks
John
 
I know there are other things involved with "mastering" a CD at the studio level,
Click to expand...
None of which have anything to do with *mixing* (which is what you seem to be talking about).

"Mastering" isn't a program - It's a process. A process that rarely ever includes things like adding reverb or delay... EQ to some extent, sure. But if you aren't basically happy with your recordings, buying some "mastering" (and I use the term with a measure of sarcasm, as most things marketed as "mastering" programs have very little to do with mastering) program isn't going to do anything.

You do what the mix tells you to do. If you aren't doing that already, putting a different hat on isn't going to make a difference.

Now, if you want a program that might be easier during mixing, then maybe try Reaper. Much more feature-rich than Audacity.
 
Dadgad said:
I have a CDs worth of fingerstyle acoustic guitar instrumentals I want to master, or, rather, improve the tone of each track.
Click to expand...
John, our Massive Master, nailed it. Waiting until the mastering stage to get your tracks to sound good is like waiting until you put your food on the plate to try to get it to taste good. It can be done, but it's really not the way to go about it.

When it comes to sound quality, you gotta ignore what the manufacturers and sales bots try and tell you; what they sell as "mastering software" (things like Ozone or T-Racks) are nothing but a collection of EQs and compressors and stuff, tools that are no different than the tools one uses in mixing to create a good-sounding mix. They found a lucrative market in selling these magical "mastering tools" to newb home recordists who don't realize that there is more to the art of mixing than just sticking a few tracks together.

If you mix doesn't sound good, then the problem is in the mix (or before, in the tracking), and it's there you should address the issue. First thing I'd do is run a parametric sweep on each of your tracks to get rid of any garbage frequencies in each track. Then, if you have multiple guitar tracks per song, to perhaps do a little (no more than a few dB) shaping EQ in a tongue-and-groove kind of style (add to one where you take away from the other, in small, gentle slopes) to lift and separate each track as called for by the arrangement and suggested by the instrument's natural sound.

Finally, remove overly-large peaks manually in the editor (Audacity or Reaper) and make liberal use of volume level automation; i.e. *ride those faders!* That is, after all, the nexus of what mixing is all about.

People these days seem to have forgotten that and have foregone mixing for "compress-and-layer" pseudo-mixing, only to try and tear those layers apart to try and fix their lousy mixing job in mastering.

As far as tools for doing that, #1 is your ears. If it doesn't sound right - I'm not talking about volume, I'm talking about sound quality; you need to be able to hear the difference between the two - then work to get it right before you move on to mastering (where you can work on volume if you wish).

#2 is your editing/mixing software itself. Any of them will work quite well, but I agree with John that Reaper can be a good, inexpensive choice with enough tous in it to keep any male happy ;).

As far as EQ, Reaper will have some serviceable EQs built in to it, bt my favorite surgical EQ for neutrality in sound and power in flexibility would be the Uniquelizer from Roger Nichols Digital.

G.
 
thanks Glenn and Massive Master....just shows how a guitarist with 40 years of serious solo playing can be so naive when it comes to anything digital. Since I only recorded one guitar in stero, with no overdubbing or other instruments, I assumed there wasn't much mixing to do besides the editing. I prefer not to add effects during tracking. I am not into "effects" or "loudness" as a folk artist, but, I think most solo acoustic instrumentals benefit from natural or added reverb, and sometimes just a hint of delay if it's a slower, more sparse tune.

Maybe I am still at the mixing stage....the point where I DO need to spice up the tone. I will investigate Reaper for these effects, but I wasn't happy with Audacity's plug-in capability. Was I wrong in not trying to add, say reverb, during the recording?

thanks again
 
Dadgad said:
thanks Glenn and Massive Master....just shows how a guitarist with 40 years of serious solo playing can be so naive when it comes to anything digital. Since I only recorded one guitar in stero, with no overdubbing or other instruments, I assumed there wasn't much mixing to do besides the editing. I prefer not to add effects during tracking. I am not into "effects" or "loudness" as a folk artist, but, I think most solo acoustic instrumentals benefit from natural or added reverb, and sometimes just a hint of delay if it's a slower, more sparse tune.

Maybe I am still at the mixing stage....the point where I DO need to spice up the tone. I will investigate Reaper for these effects, but I wasn't happy with Audacity's plug-in capability. Was I wrong in not trying to add, say reverb, during the recording?

thanks again
Click to expand...


I suggest posting some samples in the MP3 clinic and let us hear what you've got. Some good ears hang out there and give feedback. I personally would like to hear your music. You'll have better success in soliciting comments if you participate as a listener as well and check out other people's tunes and make comments. You don't have to be an expert to say if you like something or not.

Welcome to the site.
 
If it's just the one track for each song then yeah, there's really not much mixing needed. The important thing is that you choose the right mic(s) and right mic placement. No amount of eq or compression or what-have-you can fix bad mic placement. As far as mastering these songs, assuming you had a good mic and mic placement, it would mostly just be level matching and loudness, a little EQ. If it's just for family and friends I think you should be able to do it yourself, mastering houses can be expensive.
 
Dadgad said:
thanks Glenn and Massive Master....just shows how a guitarist with 40 years of serious solo playing can be so naive when it comes to anything digital.
Click to expand...
Not to worry, Dadgad; I have a friend who's been playing guitar for almost exactly as long as you have and is also on the learning curve for recording. The disciplines require the same ear, but the techniques still need to be learned in each case. Besides, it's tough to know what's up when we are all bombarded daily by software manufacturers and resellers who sell the idea of foregoing technique in the interest of selling more of their software. I'm not sure just when it started, but the misconception of waiting until mastering to get the sound right has become more pandemic than the H1N1 flu virus these days. That said, though...
Dadgad said:
Since I only recorded one guitar in stero, with no overdubbing or other instruments, I assumed there wasn't much mixing to do besides the editing.
Click to expand...
Since you really do only have stereo tracks, you're right, there's not much difference between mixing and mastering in your case; there's nothing really to "mix" :). My misunderstanding; I thought you probably had more than that.

The general concept that it's good to front-load the quality still applies - i.e. get the quality as early into the process as you can other than try to muscle it in later in the process. With that in mind, I'd recommend practicing and experimenting with mic selection and placement when recording. Acoustic guitar - as with most acoustic instruments - really gets it's best sound on it's own. While things like EQ and compression and reverb can help in mixing and mastering, the best results with acoustics are usually obtained by keeping the necessity for excessive processing to a minimum. Check out the Recording Techniques forum on this BBS, which fairly often talks about different tested methods for recording acoustic guitar.

As far as the reverb, no I'd recommend you do wait until the mixing/mastering to add it - at least until you become very proficient at using it. It's better when you're not absolutely sure of the results to record clean and add the verb later so you can always go back to the source track and try different reverb settings until you get just what you want. If you record with it, you're stuck with it, even when you wake up the next morning and find with fresh ears that you want something a bit different (which happens to all of us at one time or another :( ).

Also important in getting a good acoustic sound is picking the right environment in which to record it. If you do want some reverb au natural (which is often very good to do), recording in the kitchen or back stairway or sometimes even bathroom can give a sound you just won't find in your bedroom or basement or wherever you do your home recording

But that's all general guideline 101 kind of stuff. Chili is right, if you want specific critique of your recordings that may help guide you specifically in your situation, try out the MP3 clinic. Don't worry, they'll usually be gentile with you ;) :D.

G.
 
you guys are being so helpful...thanks! I posted over in the MP3 clinic. Glen, your idea is not new of course, but I think it's spot on: recording acoustic instruments at home, best to find the ideal place for natural reverb (though the bathroom was surely overkill in my case since it's so small!)
thanks everyone
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
First thing I'd do is run a parametric sweep on each of your tracks to get rid of any garbage frequencies in each track.
G.
Click to expand...

Let me ask this if you don't mind, because I hear about this technique often, but never really figured out 'how' to actually do it or spot it.

But how exactly do you run this 'parametric sweep' on a given track to get rid of any 'garbage frequencies'?

And also, how do you know 'what' the 'garbage frequencies' are in the first place?

(does that make sense?)
 
1) Just sweep a parametric. The technique is what it's called.

2) "Irritating" frequencies. That comes with time.
 
student8 said:
Let me ask this if you don't mind, because I hear about this technique often, but never really figured out 'how' to actually do it or spot it.

But how exactly do you run this 'parametric sweep' on a given track to get rid of any 'garbage frequencies'?

And also, how do you know 'what' the 'garbage frequencies' are in the first place?

(does that make sense?)
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're questions make sense just fine.

The idea behind the sweep is to take one band of your favorite parametric EQ, set it for a very narrow bandwidth (sometime called high 'Q'), and then crank up the gain do you have an EQ profile that gives you a very narrow, but very strong spike of a boost.

Then take that spike and slowly sweep it's center frequency from the bottom towards the top of the frequency spectrum. Every once in a while you may hit a center frequency that seems to just jump out at you even more or in an even more unpleasant way than the frequencies surrounding it. I call those "honkers"; not a very technical term, but often these freqs sound like they are honking like a wounded animal when they are heard under a parametric spike like that. They usually actually are unpleasantly strong instrument resonances, harmonics or beat frequencies that may be hard to identify in the forest of frequencies hitting our ears, but when put under the microscope of an EQ boost they much easier reveal their unpleasant nature. It's one of those " you'll know it when you hear it" situations.

Then when you find such a "honker", you flip the gain on your EQ around so you are surgically cutting that frequency by several dB instead of boosting it. This effectively takes that troublesome frequency out of the sound of the instrument/track.

Then move on to your next parametric EQ band, set it up with the same kind of spike and continue sweeping up the frequency range to see if there's another honker hiding in there somewhere. Lather, rinse, and repeat as necessary.

The result is usually a track that isn't significantly changed in the overall character of it's sound, but usually winds up just sounding "sweeter" and - very important - easier to place in the mix.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Waiting until the mastering stage to get your tracks to sound good is like waiting until you put your food on the plate to try to get it to taste good. It can be done, but it's really not the way to go about it.
Click to expand...

I really have nothing to add to this thread but I just wanted to say.....nice analogy. Honestly, that is the best way I've heard it said.
 
apush said:
I really have nothing to add to this thread but I just wanted to say.....nice analogy. Honestly, that is the best way I've heard it said.
Click to expand...
There were a few of us that talked about this in another thread not too long ago. The cooking analogy really holds well through the entire process:

The composition/arrangement covers the recipe and menu,
the performance and tracking would be analogous to the ingredients and their preparation,
mixing is the cooking,
and mastering is the plating and presentation.

(I'm not sure, but I think squashing dynamics is analogous to cooking things well done; OK on rare occasions (pun intended) if done right, but not on everything all the time. And over-squashing is actually burning the dinner ;) :D.

Oh, don't climb on my ass, guys, just having a little fun there :p.)

G.
 
Last edited:
The one thing I would add is to not shy away form effects so much. Granted I believe that garbage in = garbage out, effects wont ever save a recording, and the less effects you use the better. But, sometimes you need to emulate something like the warmness of a tube, or an over driven room mic on a drum kit. While effects will not yield a result that is 100% perfect compared to the real thing. Just using your noggin can get you pretty darn close if you learn to be creative with it.

So I say learn how, and when to use them. You just might be surprised with what you can achieve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top