why can't I master my own stuff?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fenix
  • Start date Start date
These nay sayers are just silly... and their logic is nonsensical

Here's what they're saying... since you don't have very hi-end equipment in a very hi end room, the exercise is fruitless. There's no reason to even try. Take this reasoning and apply it to home recording (tracking and mixing), you're wasting your time. Your room doesn't sound as good, your pre-amps aren't as good, same for monitors (monitoring system), your signal chain is not as good and so on... much less your talent and abilities.

Here's my take...will your mastering efforts be as productive as guys with 30 years in million dollar setups... probably not... that's not the issue at all. The question is can a home recorder improve the final product by employing mastering techniques and paradigms. Yes... Yes... Yes... The rules for mastering are different and they can be leveraged to make the final outcome better... a lot better... and on the same system. Listen to those that say you can't... then proceed to proven them wrong.

This reminds me of the AMP vs POD debate.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Same point -- how do you what needs sweetening on the same system you've mixed on? Why didn't you sweeten it when you mixed??
Click to expand...

Because EQ and compression cannot be used before mastering is done, and these are what are likely used to sweeten the sound. Unmastered mixdowns sound very "raw" compared to the mastered finished product. I think the bottom line is that professional mastering is always the way to go, but if a guy has no money then making a home master is better than a raw mixdown, provided the person understands exactly how mastering works.
 
I've read that exact thing in many manuals for mastering suites, other online resources, and in UH Bob Katz' book. Also, I was refering to extensive eq, compression, and limiting, the kind of stuff that should be left alone until it is mastered.
 
Exact quote:

Mastering should always be the last processing device in the audio production workflow. DO NOT use digital resolution optimizer processes like dithering, noise shaping, or compressors/limiters.

Edit: Prior to mastering of course!!!
 
Last edited:
Mastering should always be the last processing device in the audio production workflow. DO NOT use digital resolution optimizer processes like dithering, noise shaping, or compressors/limiters.
Click to expand...

Is something missing from that quote ? Like...

DO NOT use digital resolution optimizer processes like dithering, noise shaping, or compressors/limiters across the 2-buss prior to Mastering.

I like books like that so I'll be getting that one but I think there's a misprint here ! Ha Ha, Bob Katz is Mr. Finalizer after-all where all that stuff happens! :)

Anyway you have to dither to go to 16bit CD media unless you want to loose all the minute compression information stuffed into the rest of the 24 bits - assuming we're all working in 24 or 32 bits here ! If you dither you usually want to noise shape if your equipment or plugs or audio app have it - and it sounds good.

Anyway - do whatever you want and learn - make a safety copy though (at full 24bit resolution with no effects across the 2-buss)! That way you can re-do stuff later or send full 'un-mastered' mixes out to your favorite ME.

Good 'pre-Mastering' to ya ! Fun stuff eh ?
kylen
 
Well I believe thats exactly what it means.

Edit: Yeah I forgot to mention it was part of a paragraph about what not to do to a mix prior to having it mastered.
 
Cool The Seifer ! :cool:
Now I can go back to sleep - Ha Ha ! Flu shot got me ! argh...better than the real thing though..zzzzzzzz
kylen
 
The Seifer said:
Because EQ and compression cannot be used before mastering. . .
Click to expand...

You mean, like, at all?

Or just on the 2-bus?

'Cause last time I checked, you were allowed to use eqs & comps, even mastering limiters/eqs (if you somehow had access to them) on individual tracks and subgroups.

Which brings me back to the 2-bus question. . .
 
mallcore pop said:
You mean, like, at all?

Or just on the 2-bus?

'Cause last time I checked, you were allowed to use eqs & comps, even mastering limiters/eqs (if you somehow had access to them) on individual tracks and subgroups.

Which brings me back to the 2-bus question. . .
Click to expand...

I'm just following the "rules" that I have read in manuals and in the "mastering bible". I once tried to used compression on idividual tracks before mastering and it sounded pretty bad when I tried to add limiting and EQ on it again during the mastering process. The vocal tracks especially got distorted and started "throbbing".
 
Sounds like wrong settings to me.

If your having problems with compression in the mixing and tracking stage then it's sounds like your settings when using these tools are not suited for the material. Compression and EQ are used in recording and tracking quite often depending on what type of music is being recorded.

sonicpaint
 
Re: It's not just about the song.

sonicpaint said:
Mastering is not just about the song. To make a collection of songs come together to be on an LP or CD, takes place in the mastering stage. The levels are corrected over-all, songs sequenced and spacing between songs are decided along with many other things.

I have to agree that things should be "fixed" in the mix not the mastering. So make sure everything you hope to achieve with your songs have been, before leaving the mixing stage.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your elaboration, but I did know that.
 
Sonixx said:
These nay sayers are just silly... and their logic is nonsensical

The question is can a home recorder improve the final product by employing mastering techniques and paradigms. Yes... Yes... Yes... and on the same system.
Click to expand...

Everyone listen (or rather, read) very carefully.

Can a home recorder improve a finished mix by employing mastering techniques and paradigms?

Yes. Very much so.

But, what is the major tenet of the mastering paradigm?

Objectivity.

Therefore, in order to practice this tenet of objectivity, the home recorder will employ the services of a mastering lab.

Now, let's apply what you've learned.
(No. 2 pencil, Scantron form 882-e, completely fill the bubbles, full size blue book, black or blue ink only)

1. Can a home recorder improve a finished mix by employing mastering techniques and paradigms? (Yes or No)
________

2.What is the major tenet of the mastering paradigm?
________

3. How can a home recorder improve a finished mix by employing mastering techniques and paradigms?
______________________________________________

A step further:
Can a mastering engineer improve his or her finished mix by employing mastering techniques and paradigms?

Yes. Very much so.

But, what is the major tenet of the mastering paradigm?

Objectivity.

Therefore, in order to practice this tenet of objectivity, the mastering engineer will employ the services of a mastering lab.

Now, let's apply what you've learned.
(No. 2 pencil, Scantron form 882-e, completely fill the bubbles, full size blue book, black or blue ink only)

1. Can a mastering engineer improve his or her finished mix by employing mastering techniques and paradigms? (Yes or No)
________

2.What is the major tenet of the mastering paradigm?
________

3. How can a mastering engineer improve his or her finished mix by employing mastering techniques and paradigms?
______________________________________________

Thinking Critically:
Can objectivity be achieved by an engineer wanting to master his or her own mix using the same monitoring chain and listening environment? Why or why not?
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

You have completed the written portion of this examination.
Please turn in your scantron 882-e and blue book to the test administrator.

You may now undermine each other's confidence.
 
You can, it all depends on your definition of master. Is a 12 year old green belt karate champ a master? No, not really. To his friends in 6th grade he kicks some serious ass though. Put him in the ring with some serious contenders, hell even a weak grown man and he starts to look pretty silly.

If you only want to put your music in mp3 and play it on the net or make a cd for your friends car stereo fine...you rule. But the fact is that if you want a pro type master you will have to get a sound that will be deep and wide on ANY system, not just a 6th grader's home stereo.
 
I think a more pertinent question would be can the homereccer employ mastering techniques in his home studio? In the vast majority of cases the answer would be NO.

Now if you are releasing something (inter?)nationally, on a big budget, then it makes sense to use a pro mastering engineer. Who may (hopefully) tell you to go back home and will tell you how and why to remix it (maybe re-record it?).

If you are working on something that only your friends/loved ones/club owners are going to hear, well they can't hear the difference anyway. So DIY.

Also hands up how many people think that you can actually master a single track? You can, to some extent, but mastering in the main is about making tracks fit together. So to people who might want to know how to master a single track, just mix it better. Unless it actually sounds good. Well does it or doesn't it? Can you tell? If you CAN'T tell, then I think we may be getting closer to the core of the debate.
 
I propoze that we call the process of compressing the final mix before burning a CD "finalizing" to distringuish it from the process of taking the mix to a mastering studio and mastering it.

You can't master your own stuff unless you own a mastering studio, but you can finalize it.
 
That's a good distinction, reg.... clearer than "mastering" (in quotes)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top