steps to mastering

  • Thread starter Thread starter stupidfatnugly
  • Start date Start date
S

stupidfatnugly

New member
I'm wondering if there is an order to what you do in mastering.
I don't have the money to pay anyone to do it so I am just going to do my best with wavelab essential.

do ya add gain first and then compress/limit?

do you normalize in there or is that just the same as gain?

they don't send you much of a manual with wavelab. it's like 20 pages long
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

G.
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

G.


yup...that pretty much sums it up. :D
 
I'm wondering if there is an order to what you do in mastering.
1) Listen objectively (since you can't do that to your own mixes, move on to step two).

2) Do what the mix asks you to do individually, while keeping an ear on the project holistically (as you probably did that during mixing, or at least, you should have, move on to step three).

3) Create a production master compliant with the standards for the medium, keeping in mind the "unwritten" standards of the public (a monkey with iTunes can write a compliant disc - But it's never, ever that easy).
do ya add gain first and then compress/limit?

do you normalize in there or is that just the same as gain?
You seem to be confusing "mastering" with "making stuff loud" -- Although the final volume is established during the mastering phase, it's by far not the most important part of the process...
 
I'm sorry I made you scream: AAAAAHH or cry or whatever
 
VERY generally:

Eq out the badness, EQ in the goodness

Compress/limit/automate levels to adjust the dynamics in order to obtain the desired level and overall dynamic balance of the mix

Listen to the track in comparison to the others to ensure a general overall consistency to the album

Edit trims/fades

Dither to 16 bit

Arrange the order for the songs

Burn CD

Test on a couple of systems to verify that your choices translate well if your monitoring or room are not optimal, and repeat the above steps if not
 
how do I submit a song to a mastering engineer if I decide to go that route?
can you be very specific about this?

record everything onto a stereo audio track and export is as a wav file?

then send to you on a flash disc or something?
 
how do I submit a song to a mastering engineer if I decide to go that route?
can you be very specific about this?

record everything onto a stereo audio track and export is as a wav file?

then send to you on a flash disc or something?

Export/record/bounce to disk at the same sample rate as the session tracks at 24 bit, preferably as a stereo interleaved file (wav, aiff, etc.)

We have a form to upload the tracks over the 'net, but basically any digital copy (Internet, CD, DVD, etc.) is fine.
 
Last edited:
how do I submit a song to a mastering engineer if I decide to go that route?
can you be very specific about this?
Being very specific, it's whatever gets it to the facility. Sometimes it's FTP/online FMS, U.S. Mail, Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, armed security guard, special courier - I've not received anything via carrier pigeon, but it wouldn't shock me if one came in.
 
Because mastering is more engineering than anything, I would reccomend sending your tracks to a professional to be done. Save the money and get it mastered professionally -- you won't regret it. That is exactly what I'm doing. I'll track and mix, but I ain't touching the whole mastering process... :eek:
 
Because mastering is more engineering than anything...I'll track and mix, but I ain't touching the whole mastering process... :eek:
[RANT]
This is nothing personal at you, jndietz, I'm just using your quote because it is so perfectly representative of the HUGE problem that always rears it's head on this board that just drives me to scream like I did in the first reply.

Would someone please tell the rest of us how it is that they believe that "mastering is more engineering than anything" and that tracking and mixing are not? (Frankly, jndietz, I give you credit for even mentioning mixing; most people seem to believe there is only tracking and mastering, and that all mixing is is throwing together the former in order to do the later.)

And would someone please also tell the rest of us where all these newbs get the idea that the main purpose of mastering is fixing the mix? I really want to go to the origins of this crap and sautee the kneecaps of the people spreading this garbage.

The engineering is supposed to be frontloaded, folks. Ask any seasoned professional engineer: their best work is the result of tracking that practically mixes itself, and of mixes that need the least amount of "engineering" at the mastering stage.

I'm not taking anything away from the job that MEs like Tom and John do; in fact I'd say thay'd probably agree with me. They have a tough enough job without having to try and polish turds.

[/RANT]

G.
 
Hey Glenn, I get your rant and kind of know where you're coming from. I think recording is a fulltime job for you, or at least more than a hobby.

Being fairly newb and doing everything myself, I look at mastering as a fix for my mix. After a year and a half, I finally got together 12 tunes that I think might work on a cd. That year and a half pretty much encompasses my entire learning curve so there's a huge difference from the earlier songs to the later. And I still have a ton of learning to do, so my mixes aren't going to be perfect, or great, or even good. So I'm relying on a good mastering job to pull them together and make them coherent as a sellable CD.

I could retrack and remix, which I have done to some extent after learning new things or getting feedback in the MP3 clinic. But I'm not going to retrack all the songs and remix. As a homerecordist, I only get a few hours in the evening to work on my material. It would take me another year and a half and frankly, I just want to get the tunes out there and into peoples' ears.

I even tried to "master" the album myself, but couldn't get the tunes to gel. I ended up sending them off to Tom V. hoping he (and/or his 2nd) can perform magic. I realize my shortcomings and feel that a mastering studio can certainly fix a mix. Is that the way it's suppose to be?? I guess not, but I'll never get to the level where my mixes need nothing more than a limiter and PQ codes. from the samples so far, I'm very pleased with my decision to go with Tom.

Everyone says to spend the money on a good local recording studio, but that doesn't always work for the hobbyist musician like me. Like I said, I only get a few hours to work on this stuff. I don't have time, money or energy to get my old-ass down to a studio for 8 hours. (that would be a luxury :D )

We're coming from two very different perspectives and hope you realize a hobbyist like myself has completely different needs than a fulltimer like you. The ME's are gonna save my bacon. (Thanks Tom and Celia!!)

Very cool.
Cheers,

BTW: While I'm at it, it would be really great to get some fulltimers to come into the clinic once in a while and give advice on mixes thrown up there. I'd love to hear what Tom, John or Glenn would have to say about some of the postings. :)
 
Indulge me for my quoting in the wrong order
We're coming from two very different perspectives and hope you realize a hobbyist like myself has completely different needs than a fulltimer like you.
Maybe I'm missing something, Chili (it wouldn't be the first time ;) ), but I don't see our needs as different at all. You're making a CD, and one where you're concerned enough about the result to spend the money to take it to a pro like Tom to to do a pro job on it. There's zero difference between us there. Apparently the fact that you are not doing this for money (whereas I do) hasn't changed the fact that you were still willing to spend the money to try and get it right. That puts us on the same playing field.

The part I just simply don't understand is why there's this perception out there that tracking and mixing are easy enough to DIY, but that mastering is this black magic art that contains all the secrets of making good audio. Moreso, that that is what mastering is even supposed to be about.

Chili, you have (I assume) learned by going through this last year-and-a-half ordeal that this is obviously not the case; 18 months of working on tracking and mixing and you find yourself having to rely upon Tom to "save your bacon", as you put it, because apparently your bacon just isn't edible as is. You are not alone, we see this "fix it in the shrinkwrapping" attitude all the time here.

Yet very few people will even consider taking on a producer to manage the sound through the stages, and that can tell the tracking engineer what you need. And nobody even considers taking their tracks to a qualified mix engineer to actually get a decent mix done in mixing. No, there's this idea that the best time to bring in a pro is when they need to close the barn door after most of the horses have already left.

I know it's not folks like Tom or John that are telling you guys this...at least not on these HR forums. They tell you the truth, that they can only polish a turd so well, and that they can do a MUCH better job on a decent mix than on a broken one.

So, my question remains. Where does this perspective come from? Does everybody actually believe this by thinking it out from first principles? Do they actually believe that mastering is where the magic happens and is supposed to happen? If so, it's sure not coming from this forum. I'm just asking where it's coming from.
Chili said:
BTW: While I'm at it, it would be really great to get some fulltimers to come into the clinic once in a while and give advice on mixes thrown up there. I'd love to hear what Tom, John or Glenn would have to say about some of the postings. :)
I can only speak for myself on this one. I come here to learn and to give advice on HOW to do things, not WHAT to do. I prefer to teach the next generation how to fish, not to catch the fish for them.

Occasionally I'll give an MP3 a critical listen and give my opinion, sure. But in general, if someone wants to to know how to make mixes, I'm there to offer my advice, FWTW. But if they want me to do their producing or their mixing for them - which is basically what the MP3 clinic is all about when you boil it down - I want to get paid for it. I like to eat and do so with a roof over my head and no bill collectors at the door. Call me old fashioned that way :D.

G.
 
Hey Glen, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

As you already know, today's prosumer level equipment is financially within reach of most everyone. A good recording engineer can achieve greater quality today than possible from a high end studio 15 years ago (or something like that, I've got no real facts to back that up, you know what I mean). But mastering equipment and skills needed are still out of reach of the normal guy like me. So, I'm willing to spend $2500 on recording equipment and room, DIY it, and get an adequate mix. But I am not going to spend $10k on speakers, then completely treat a studio room, then buy all the other stuff I don't even have a clue about. I think that's why most home recording types are willing to track and mix at home, but send it out to a mastering engineer and hope they can make it sound good.

Then comes the non-tangibles, like listening expertise. I don't have it, that's why my mixes sound like crap. That's why i need to send it out to a mastering studio. I can't afford to send my tracks out to get professionally mixed, so I hope someone like Tom can fix my mix for me. Two birds, one stone, I guess. ( And his 2nd did ask me to remix a song with suggested changes. :o )

Then there's another aspect of tracking and mixing that lends to the reason people like to do that themselves and that is the artistic side of it. As a writing musician, my songs are still works in progress until I mixdown. I can't afford to do that if I went to a local studio. I certainly can't afford to hire a producer to sculpt a soundstage for me. So, I get to do it all myself. That aspect takes place in the tracking and mixing portion, something within my control. And half the fun, I might add.

I won't say that tracking and mixing are easy to do. I feel I fall flat there. I certainly don't think mastering a set of songs is black magic. But there's a level of committment to a mastering studio that's not needed to track and mix. They've got the equipment, skills and talent that is beyond the reach of a normal recording musician. They're going to hear mistakes in an amatuer mix and fix it. It's not magic, at least I don't have that perception.

I went into this thinking that I would be sending my tunes out to a pro to master a cd for me, but I did try to do it myself beforehand. I used Ozone and Wavelab essential (gasp, I know, I know...) Individual songs came out okay, but they didn't sit well with each other. After several tries, I gave up and called Tom. And after receiving the mixes, his words were, "not bad for a home studio. We can work with this". Made me feel kind of good. :D

Glen, I think the only thing we have in common is we are trying to put out quality material. Our paths to that point are completely different and I need to rely on a good mastering job to get me to that point.

Oh, I am in it for the money. I have this dillusional fantasy that someone might actually buy my tunes and I can turn a profit. :eek: :rolleyes: :D

Cheers,
 
As you already know, today's prosumer level equipment is financially within reach of most everyone. A good recording engineer can achieve greater quality today than possible from a high end studio 15 years ago (or something like that, I've got no real facts to back that up, you know what I mean).
Don't mistake capacity for quality. Sure , one can create a massive multi-track production in th home for $2500 with of gear, which used to take a Gig Boy studio to achieve. But the quality just isn't the same. $2500 is the cost of a single mic preamp - hell a single mic - in a Big Boy studio, and that's for a reason. Because they *sound* different.

Sure, a good engineer can make something servicable out of a small project studio, whether they're pro or not; but that's not because of the gear, that's because of their skills.

News flash; it's no different with mastering.
But mastering equipment and skills needed are still out of reach of the normal guy like me.
...
Then comes the non-tangibles, like listening expertise. I don't have it, that's why my mixes sound like crap. That's why i need to send it out to a mastering studio.
...
I won't say that tracking and mixing are easy to do. I feel I fall flat there. I certainly don't think mastering a set of songs is black magic. But there's a level of committment to a mastering studio that's not needed to track and mix.
This is exactly the misunderstanding, the untrue double-standard that I'm talking about. The belief that all tracking and mixing requires is some crap gear run by any old dude or dudette with enough personal credit, but mastering is on another level both gear and expertise-wise. Quality mastering does require that, but so do quality tracking and mixing to an exactly equal degree.

But now you have discovered that your gear and your level of expertise *isn't* good enough to get the tracking and mixing down, and that you have to hope that someone like Tom can "save your bacon". A year and a half of your life and $2500 spent just to have to pay someone to come in and try and salvage what they can from your mess.

Do you have any idea how much cheaper it would have been in both time and money to actually do it right from the beginning by hiring an experienced producer or engineer to help with your project? You would have had your tracks done a year ago, it would have cost a whole lot less than you've spent doing it this way, your tracks would sound a whole lot better, and your mastering costs would be lower with better results.
Then there's another aspect of tracking and mixing that lends to the reason people like to do that themselves and that is the artistic side of it. As a writing musician, my songs are still works in progress until I mixdown.
What that means to me is that you rushed into recording before you actually had a product that was ready to record, and that you didn't have a plan in your head for what you wanted before you hit the record button. And it wound up costing you a year and a half anyway.
Glen, I think the only thing we have in common is we are trying to put out quality material. Our paths to that point are completely different and I need to rely on a good mastering job to get me to that point.
I'm only asking this:

I'm asking where it is that you guys get the idea from the get-go that it's OK to phone in the tracking and ignore the mixing, because all the quality comes from the mastering? Where did that idea *come from*?

I'm asking what is so economical about spending $2500 on entry-level gear, a year and a half of your life that you'll never get back (that's worth a lot more than $2500 right there), just to wind up having to pin your hopes on the idea that all your mistakes can be fixed in the shrinkwrap, which, BTW you're paying even more to have done, only to wind up with a result that will be inferior to and more expensive than what you would have had if someone didn't come along and plant those ideas about tracking, mixing and mastering in your head, and if you weren't in such a hurry to record.

Again, Chili, I'm not meaning to pick on you, you just happen to be here right now ;). There are a few million other Chili's out there who have this idea that the only thing that requires pro skills is the mastering, and it just gets sickening to keep hearing that over and over, like the ringing of a bell signifying the death of the music recording industry.

G.
 
I think its because people just throw whatever mic in front of an audio source and hit record. You mention tracks that mix themselves. I don't think a lot of home recording guys understand how to acheive that. So, they record, then they sit down and mix away until it sounds good. We are taught that mastering requires different gear and a different mindset -- something that maybe a lot of us do not have.

I don't know.
 
We are taught that mastering requires different gear and a different mindset
This is exactly what I'm shooting for: Who is teaching that?

Tracking and mixing require different gear and mindsets as well, both from each other and from mastering, if one wants to play that game. But they ALL require the exact same fundamental skills; a good ear, an intimate knowledge of how their gear affects what their ear hears, and a few fundamental techniques for applying the first two.

And I got news for ya; the gear required for mastering is really not all that different, and the mindset and level of skill is not really any greater between a quality mastering engineer and a quality mixing or tracking engineer.

But "we are taught" by *someone* out there - all myths have an origin - that somehow mastering is on a whole other plane than tracking or mixing. That is simply not true. And I, for one, would like to know who is "teaching us" that myth so I can have an honest discussion with them. Better to cauterize the wound at the source than to spin one's wheels mopping up the blood on the floor every day.

The only difference is that when someone who is not ready to record on a performance and material level and who has not had a chance to develop any engineering skills yet decides they are going to spend two thousand dollars and become the next Coldplay all by themselves, and find out that they just have not created what they expected to, that they are forced to go to a pro at the last minute to try and "save their bacon".

Is a "saved bacon" CD *really*the first impression we want to make if we want to be successful?

Pro mixing engineers send their stuff to mastering engineers not because they have to, but because they want to. Because the hand waxing job that Tom or John could do on a quality mix would make that mix really shine like a concept car at an auto show. But give them a mix that needs repair and not just polishing, and it will never look that good.

G.
 
I think the best use of your money should be tracking. Get an experienced engineer or producer in to help tracking, then mixing and mastering will be a lot easier. Like Glen said, it mixes itself.

A good source is the most important thing, then good mic placement, as well as the experience to know what you're looking for. As long as everything else is of a decent standard, mic, pre, convertion and interface, then you should have a good recording.

To mix, you need a good recording, decent monitors in a good room, and good ears to know what to listen for. But a good recording won't require too much.

For mastering, you need a decent recording/mix and the experience, ears, and monitoring environment to add the finishing sparkle. You can't fix in the mix, and you certainly can't fix in the master.
 
Hey Glen, no problem.... I'm just giving you my perspective.

Cheers,
 
Back
Top