To Master (myself) or Not to Master (myself)

[gotwalp]

Hello there,
I just completed recording my bands new album. The mixing and edits are all done and now I have to hit the mastering phase. I used some DP4 plugins to do some basic mastering and I think it sounds good. My question is...... Should it (could it) sound better? Do any of the good mastering peeps on this forum do samples per say? I'm just looking for options and possibly shopping for a mastering house. Any advice will be much appreciated.
Cheers,
Gotwalp
www.iloveimprint.com

 

[Massive Master]

(A) I do samples - If it'll get you to even consider not doing your own mastering, please check it out (look for the "get a sample" page on the website).

(B) I (and I know that most mastering engineers) HIGHLY suggest NOT doing your own mastering. I don't even master my own mixes - I can't come at it objectively, which is half the point of mastering to begin with - An OBJECTIVE ear on the project.

I could go on for hours on WHY not to, but I'm short on time this morning -

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

To Master (myself) or Not to Master (myself)

Not to Master (yourself)

 

[Thorguitarist]

Can someone please explain the mastering process to me. I've slowley started myself into the recording field and I really like it. I just got done building a monitoring room in my basement. But I was wondering what gets done in mastering.

 

[jonhall5446]

No one can explain it.... It remains a great myyyyssssterrrry. No seriously, if you get one of these mastering guys to tell you what they do step by step then you are ummm, really cool

 

[VTgreen81]

My Nephew. an engineer, describes it this way............"Those guys are freaks, basically they do nothing, but the nothing that they do is.....(shakes head)........WOW"

 

[kylen]

I'm a home mastering guy. I do it for myself and for friends who are looking for non-commercial distribution but at the same time want their own home stuf balanced and polished a bit.

So what I do is have a room set up that is balanced as flat as possible acoustically, ambience set up to a decent sounding value (RT60=400ms),a fairly decent D/A converter, and reference monitoring that is able to reveal depth and clarity across the full audio spectrum.

I then use various tools in a DAW app like Sonar3 or Adobe Audition to adjust the balance of EQ, Dynamics, and Stereo balance if necessary to what I think they should be. My judgement is also based on commercial recordings as well as the sounds I'm looking for or my buddies are trying for...make it hot, keep the life in it, etc. I also have to adjust the fade-in, fade-out and loudness so that all sonds in the set match more or less.

The results vary according to my toolset and experience same as it does further upstream or downstream. As I said earlier my current station in life is at the home-recording level (this is the homerecording forum, yes?) and I sit downstream from folks that would be mastering for a more commercial arena. I do demo and 'look at what I did' type stuff but still strive to get the best sound possible - don't we all ?

I'm out on the road now but if you post something I'd be able to contribute in a few weeks along with anyone else, there's some pretty good folks here - some looking for commercial opportunities some weekend warriors at the home level.

Good Luck !

 

[Middleman]

To really master well, you need to buy some very expensive compressors, ADDA convertors, Parametric EQs and dedicated limiters. You need to understand parallel processing and Mid-Side (M/S) crafting. (How am I doing John? - although I still don't understand it all even though you have told me a dozen times)

So, take it to a mastering house.

 

[LRosario]

Not to Master (yourself)

I agree and I'll tell you why.

Professional mastering engineers use special equipment and knowledge, seperate from recording engineers. For example, the monitors mastering engineers use are far more accurate (or should be) than studio monitors.


However, dosn't hurt to try. Just keep an unmastered copy handy

 

[LRosario]

Can someone please explain the mastering process to me. I've slowley started myself into the recording field and I really like it. I just got done building a monitoring room in my basement. But I was wondering what gets done in mastering.

You'd be surprised at what really gets done in mastering.

In essence, mastering is just like a finalizing process. You do things like making sure a song fades out properly, adjusting the levels to the songs so that they are even, etc.

Even the order of the songs is discussed during mastering.

But the really neat trick is the speakers these guys use. An old buddy of mine works down at Sony and he managed to master some of the stuff I sent off to him (I was working at a lower class studio at the time). In that process, we must of heard the songs through about 15 different pairs of speakers. True story.

The reason you do that is to try to get the best balance you can in all types of speakers.There is so much more, but thats just the taste of what mastering is. Thats why people who master usually specialize in mastering.

Most of the times, you become a mastering engineer by either:

A) someone in the business who is willing to take you under his wing and show you (rarely happens)

B) Go to a school and get the training you need to learn.

You could litterally spend a life time learning the Art of proper mastering.

Interesting stuff

 

[Thorguitarist]

~ ... Wow, i do all my editing in soundforge 6...(dont use seven cause i dont have XP ) I fade out and stuff in there? Probably not the same right? I also invented an EQ curve the i use which boosts the highs and mids in a parabolic fashion. I would love to learn mastering. and i was thinking about getting monitors probably the TR5-N (the events) i dunno if thats the right model name but at school we have the Event 20/20 biamp and those are really nice. If what you described as mastering is indeed that, then what is mixing? cause i do them all in one i guess.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

I don't master the tracks that I mix and record because I feel my objectivity is lost. However, I will do a 'boffo' master along with the unmastered mixes I give them so they have something a bit more polished sounding to show their buddies while they get it mastered.

 

[Ronan]

I will chime in from a little bit different perspective as a guy who has made more records than I can remember. I have probably sat in on well over a hundred mastering sessions with pro mastering guys, so I know the technical side of what they do pretty well, but the more I work with pro mastering guys the more I have come to rely on them. In addition to the great gear a real mastering room will have, the extra set of ears and subjective expertice they bring to the project is so valuable.

I do master some of my own projects when its something with a really small budget and we need to make sure its at least as "loud" as commercial CDs, but it is very rare that the projects I master myself stand up to the tracks that were mastered by real mastering engineers.

 

[Massive Master]

I don't master the tracks that I mix and record because I feel my objectivity is lost.

BAM! That's 90% of it right there...

More and more frequently, I've been getting in mixes on a CD and a mix that's marked "mastered" or "sort of mastered" or "half-asstered" or something to give me an idea of what they're looking for...

Last month, this band comes in with a single that's going on a compilation with an *initial* print of 250,000 copies. The rec/mix engineer (who I've worked with on several occasions, and normally does a fine job) gave them a "mastered" copy AND a non-mastered copy. They just wanted me to check his work, and burn a 16-bit PMCD of the single for the company.

And it was a good thing they came in...

I popped the disc in and started listening - WAY too much compression from the start. Then, these huge tom rolls came by. Did I say "huge?" I meant "metal sticks hitting cardboard boxes." So, I grabbed the file, and then grabbed the file of the non-mastered version and lined them up.

Those tom rolls were right in the pocket on the non-mastered version.

Now, I don't "blame" the guy for the most part - He and the band have heard those tom rolls dozens of times, along with everything else. When he was smashing them clean out of existence, I'm sure that he and they could still "hear" them becasue they knew that they were there in the first place. I, however, never heard them before. So, I knew that I wasn't hearing them then.

The mix had some heavy compression going on, but was still fairly dynamic. It took an eight second release time on the Vari-Mu to keep those toms rockin' without the rest of the mix pumping behind them while increasing the overall volume level.

The end result was a CLEAR, clean, punchy mix with nice sounding climactic tom rolls that was about 1.5dB quieter than the -10dB RMS (?!?) mix that had the life squashed out of it. Good trade? I thought so. So did the band.

It's not that this engineer doesn't have the "talent" to master music - In this case, he was just too close to the music. He couldn't hear the details I was hearing because he was so familiar with ALL of the details. Does that make sense?

He didn't notice that really hot girl flirting with him because he was too busy trying to pick up chicks. Better?

Couldn't see the trees through the forest... Overused, I suppose...

I'll think of a nice analogy sometime...

 

[chessrock]

He didn't notice that really hot girl flirting with him because he was too busy trying to pick up chicks. Better?

I don't know about that one. A dude trying to pick up chicks is going to have a hard time not noticing a hot girl flirting with him.

 

[LRosario]

If what you described as mastering is indeed that, then what is mixing? cause i do them all in one i guess.

Well see thats the funny thing. Mixing is alot simpler than most make it out to be. All we really get done in the studio is laying down the raw tracks. Simply getting the best sound we can in the tracking process, putting it together and calling it a day. It's the way people do it that makes it different everytime.

Mixing is the part where you play back what you recorded and start tweaking your tracks. Everything from EQ to dynamic based effects, from panning to volume levels are covered in this process.

Often times, the bands like the raw mixes so much, they skip mastering all together. But if it's intended for radio release or mass distribution, I always advise mastering.

 

[ryanlikestorock]

I don't master the tracks that I mix and record because I feel my objectivity is lost.

I feel exactly the same way. I've been doing a lot more mixing projects lately and I just can't master them.

 

[glynb]

Is it genre dependent?

i mean i can see how a metal band with lots of noisy guitars going on would definitely need mastering, but how about say an acoustic three piece or something? Is there less need there?

Or are there issues regardless of genre which make mastering essential in all cases?

Further point, say there's a problem in the mix, on a particular song, for example on 1 or 2 songs out of a collection of 10 the bass is too loud in comkparrioson with the other tracks. Is that something that would/could be fixed in mastering or is it a case of go back to do a remix every time?

Presumably rates vary too?

Do these guys charge according to who the client is (record label or hobbyist), or is there a set fee?

 

[ryanlikestorock]

Well see thats the funny thing. Mixing is alot simpler than most make it out to be. All we really get done in the studio is laying down the raw tracks.

These sound like two opposite ideas to me. When I look at the work Spector or Brian Wilson were doing in the early/mid 60's, I think "wow, they were doing half of what we do during the mixing stage right there in the studio". I mean, they were tracking with compression, reverb/echo, and general volume right to tape- sometimes tracking instruments or vocals during a bounce from tape to tape... just insanity.

These days, we record the instruments to their own tracks, dry. Then, do basically everything to them in the mixing stage. I guess in the past 40 years, the name of the game has switched from tracking to mixing for the most part. That's where the majority of "the sound" is coming from for most projects anyway.

 

[Ronan]

i mean i can see how a metal band with lots of noisy guitars going on would definitely need mastering, but how about say an acoustic three piece or something? Is there less need there?

Or are there issues regardless of genre which make mastering essential in all cases?

Further point, say there's a problem in the mix, on a particular song, for example on 1 or 2 songs out of a collection of 10 the bass is too loud in comkparrison with the other tracks. Is that something that would/could be fixed in mastering or is it a case of go back to do a remix every time?

Presumably rates vary too?

Do these guys charge according to who the client is (record label or hobbyist), or is there a set fee?

All styles of music benefit from good mastering. String quartet, and orchestral records get mastered to.

Mastering can bring the low end down in the 1 or 2 songs in your example. It can not always lower the prception of the instrument level in a mix but can lower or raise the low end energy.

Most mastering studios will do different rates for major and indie records