Opinions on this image, please.

rose62

New member
When one is very new to this, like me, something like this could be very useful. Does anyone have a better one? One that includes pre-mixing?


audiomasteringflowchart.jpg
 
I don't have a physical flow chart like that, but I have a broadly similar mental checklist.

There is also another step of you are mastering a number of tracks, rather than a single track, and that step is to make the tracks sound consistent with each other and develop a cohesive suite.
 
Thanks Zed, for the input. This one starts with the "mixdown." I looked for a similar chart that actually began with the actual setup for first recording sound. And though I realize that this is a creative process that shouldn't be done by rote, so to speak, it seems that a flow chart would provide a great path to start from which folks would inevitably fine tune their own approach.

What I'm finding is that the further I get into the software (and I'm certain that this is the case with all audio recording, whether digital or analog) the more I discover that there is so much further to go. That, plus my natural inability to "know when to quit!" LOL.

I started out with Reaper just happy to be able to lay down a track. Then WHOABOY! What the H#*& happened? If anyone gets a notion to do such a chart, I'd be eternally grateful.

I was reading a Noob post in either mixing or mastering and the level of very passionate disagreement about technique among seasoned pros really leaves a noob like me feeling lost. I mean, "if the pros can't agree on an approach, what chance to I have to arrive at a sound that will stand up to scrutiny?"
 
I don't know anything, mjb, about the recommendations, I just cut and pasted the only thing that I could find to demonstrate what I was thinking.
 
^^^+1 to mjb
As an aside, I would have to say that part of the reason for so many different approaches to our work/hobby/love etc. is the simple fact that everyone hears differently and no two people have EXACTLY the same tastes or opinions. Ultimately I believe this means that its best to remember why you're doing something-not get totally tangled in the how and forget the target. Which could be : Does it sound good to me, my client or whoever it is for? There are so many playback options these days that mixing and mastering(which are very different,see this forum subject) is often an act of compromise as well as creation. They are also endeavors that both require a lot of "do it, learn it , do it some more". If you feel the need for a workflow chart, than I say go with it-I would only suggest try moving the blocks around to see what works for YOU.
 
Reverb is added during the mixing stage - speak up anyone here who adds it during mastering.

Putting a 16.5k low pass - for what purpose? Maybe if you are mastering for some particular format? (Itunes, vinyl? I have no idea, never heard of anyone doing that.)


Like gto says "its best to remember why you're doing something" - why would you put a low pass on something? Because there is high frequency something causing a problem in the mix. Same as the suggestion some people have of putting a high pass on every track to get rid of low frequency build-up/mud. If you have that problem in your tracks, by all means do it, but don't do it just 'because you should'.

If you are doing your own mastering - like many of us do either because we can't afford to have someone else do it (like me), or because we're not trying to make a 'commercial release', then you have to be aware of the limitations - you're mastering on the same system (same monitors, same room) as you mixed on.
For that reason, I try to get things fixed in the mixes, and the 'mastering' is just getting all the tunes up to an acceptable level and sound (master limiter + a tiny bit of compression) and occasionally a little overall EQ.
 
Reverb is added during the mixing stage - speak up anyone here who adds it during mastering.

I've done it on occasion. I agree that reverb is generally added to taste during the mixing. But, for example, I once recorded a choir in a very dry room, so after the event I added reverb at the very end to create the sense of space that was missing. Also there have been times when I've been given a stereo track to 'fix' and have done the same.

If you are doing your own mastering - like many of us do either because we can't afford to have someone else do it (like me), or because we're not trying to make a 'commercial release', then you have to be aware of the limitations - you're mastering on the same system (same monitors, same room) as you mixed on. For that reason, I try to get things fixed in the mixes, and the 'mastering' is just getting all the tunes up to an acceptable level and sound (master limiter + a tiny bit of compression) and occasionally a little overall EQ.

Yes. There are things that you can't do if you master a track yourself, and that is yo listen to it from a third person's perspective objectively. So, other than the mechanical processes of getting cohesion across a suite of tracks or, and adjusting final levels, any messing around in mastering is simply second-guessing yourself and your mixing.
 
I've used Sound Forge in the past to do fakey "mastering" and one of the isotope plugins has a reverb as part of the mastering chain, but it was ahead of the "limiting" function. The chain in OP shows it after limiting, which frankly I find Um, weird. As in won't you have to limit again after reverb?
 
Again, in my defense, the image was the only one I could find that represented the thought that I was trying to express. I'm too green to be able to look at it and make any definitive critique of the processes suggested there. But, I'm listening to all of yours, for sure.

But the beauty of that chart is that it, or something like it, gives me reference so that when I have done a task I can ask myself, "what's next, why, how and what are my personal preferences with regard to that aspect of audio." Not to mention giving me a name for a task of which I may have been previously ignorant. Then I have something to search and inform myself. And, no matter how debatable or incomplete, it's something to keep me moving forward. For in spite of the disagreement you fellows have expressed with the contents of the chart there's little doubt that if I applied exactly what it suggest, my stuff would probably sound better than it does now!! LOL

In my brief efforts I have, more than once (and no doubt will again have), discovered that I am missing entire processes that would produce much more satisfactory results. And sometimes the difference had been shocking.
 
Last edited:
I'm not quite sure why you want it? We would all have different box titles, and perhaps things in different orders, so the only person who would need a flow chart would be you, and to produce the flow chart, you already have it in your head.

I don't think I have personally in all my years recording ever had a need of one. The exception was when I spent 12 years as a teacher, and the exam requirements needed people to produce one. In real life, I don't see the point. It's also silly to make definitive rules - as in lopping everything over 16.5KHz off?

What's it for?
 
"I don't think I have personally in all my years recording ever had a need of one."

That's impressive Rob, that from your first efforts you had a natural ability to understand track recording and processing. That you had an instinctive knowledge of the subtleties that go into making a track achieve that elusive balance of dynamic yet unobtrusive. That mixing and mastering came naturally to you. I'm not so endowed, unfortunately.

And as I commented, in reading a post from another "noob" who was requesting the just most basic advice, more advanced members couldn't even agree on a number of things that, to an inexperienced guy like me, would seem settled but are apparently still open to debate.

Having a template would, obviously, not be the last word for anyone, but a helluva lot better than starting from scratch with a handful of tools but no knowledge of how to use them.

I think of building an engine. I have a block and the associated reciprocating and rotating assembly. And on a stand, I have a finished engine. I'm told to put together the parts so that I have duplicated the engine on the stand. I could certainly create a chart that would outline the steps to achieve this. However, some guys would say, "use a bead hone" to finish the bore while another would say, "use a stone-type hone for the bore." One might say, "before dropping in the crank, chamfer the oil holes" while another would say, "leave it as ground." None of these instruction would negate the fact that the bore needing honing or that the crank needed to be installed. But knowing the steps would allow me to gain the knowledge necessary to separate the required steps from the personal preference of how to perform those steps. A poor analogy perhaps.
 
I get it-like someone handing you the key to a toolbox, giving you a stack of parts, and a working engine than saying "Take these parts and make that engine" and no more. Most would find that not only daunting but also frustrating, discouraging and possibly hopeless. So let me just say right off -I want to encourage you to try anything and if it helps , USE it. I am a firm believer that putting something on paper as it were , can help you organize your thoughts, workflow, whatever. Also I don't think anyone meant to bust on your ideas, we're just people who are passionate about something which makes us opinionated. So let me just expand a bit on Rob's points: Each of the boxes in this map, as well as the map are processes,"tools" used in recording, creating, mixing, mastering audio. In order to use these tools(including most vehemently , the chart itself), as would be engineers we must know A: What is this? B:Why is it used/needed? C: How is it used/needed? The chart ostensibly only shows "when". What many of us are arguing is the "when", because it should flow naturally from the why. So that if we understand why we are using something it will point towards the when to use it. IMHO we are all constantly learning and when doing any sort of creative endeavor there is an infinite amount of information, but also something very special- while building a mix or an engine, skipping steps, omitting parts, adding unknown parts can not only cause a disaster(and a learning experience) but also we might come up with something great. So learn what your tools are, why they are used, how they are used and when they are used then throw out all those rules and try everything you can think of cuz the more you do this stuff, the better you get. And have fun. Music should be a joy.
 
Not bad! (Why is this in Reaper instead of Mastering?)

I do use reverb in my "pseudo-mastering" sometimes. Well, when I'm doing open mics and generating freebie quick mixes, pretty much all the time because I only usually have vocal + guitar tracks to mix, and the reverb I use on those is slightly different, with a different pre-delay, i.e., it's more of a track enhancement than a mix glue/finish thing. The mix reverb is generally to emphasize the live room ambience, which I'm actually not capturing during recording.

But, we all tend to create our own workflows, so having a template that captures your chart is probably as good a place to start as any. Better than randomly throwing a bunch of stuff in the pot, stirring, and wondering why sometimes it tastes good and sometimes it's horrible (to toss in another metaphor).
 
"Not bad! (Why is this in Reaper instead of Mastering?)" Probably because I don't consider myself sufficiently informed to ask any questions in Mastering!! LOL


".....and when doing any sort of creative endeavor there is an infinite amount of information" Man, ain't it the truth!!

"But, we all tend to create our own workflows, so having a template that captures your chart is probably as good a place to start as any. Better than randomly throwing a bunch of stuff in the pot, stirring, and wondering why sometimes it tastes good and sometimes it's horrible (to toss in another metaphor)." Ain't it the truth, 2X!!
 
The thing about charts like that, as pointed out already, they sometimes may have things that do not apply to a particular mix. so if you use it - because its on the chart - you may be hurting the mix rather than improving it.
So ... listen to the mix ... what does it need ... stereo widening? Boost highs? Volume increase? Only do what you think it needs, experiment, listen again (and watch out for ear fatigue).
 
Checklists are useful.

They are particularly useful to newcomers who may not even realise there is a step to go through before calling something finished.

In time, the newcomer becomes an oldcomer, and the oldcomer has the rituals embedded in his or her brain, and the checklist becomes superfluous. But even, they can be handy reminders.

The best engineers are probably those who have two sets of skills: technical and musical. An engineer needs to know how music works. In particular, they need to know how music works for the genre they are dealing with.
 
You, sir, never fail to add a useful comment to a discussion. If you know the location of a checklist that you find useful for four-on-the-floor rock music, on this site or elsewhere, drop me a link.
 
Part of the danger of something like this would be noobs assuming that this is a definitive list of things that must be one, in this order, for all genres and all projects.

Too many times, people with little experience will latch on to "rules" and tricks to help make sense of the whole thing, without realizing that nothing works all the time, in all situations.

It would be much better to have a flow chart that goes something like:

Listen to what you have-->envision what you want it to be---> do they match?---> ifyes, you are done, if no, use whatever equipment and technique necessary to bring what you have closer to what you want. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
Back
Top