mastering=meh
mix it right the first time. if it sounds like crap mastering wont help.
mastering in Live
dm_hawk wrote:
go to gear list, have a look and this plus a hell lot of experience makes real mastering. (the gear list is just to give you a rough idea, but obviously can vary)
the experience and knowledge needed to know excactly what and when to apply to a track, or project or album is something i can't write down witthout creating a book the size of a bible. (thats why it takes sooo... long to become really good at it)
also for the record i never said that there are not literally thousands of recordings out which never have been professionally mastered, nor that the music is any worth or bad, because of that.
all i am saying is don't abuse the term, i am sensitive about it, cause it creates a missconception, of what it is and what it takes do it.
here are others who go off, when people call HD memory or something similar, that's all.
and again, yes you can enhance sound with a multitrack program like Live, and yes a good mix or production hardly need any mastering, still if you do that this way it's NOT mastering.
and thanks to modern marketing, companies get away with calling there suites, like Ozone or T-Racks mastering programs, they still remain toys, that they are not working to a certain extend, i never ever said, please do read propperly.
and i am still strongly against the missuse of the term. you wouldn't call a spoon a pan would you?
robert henke just posted a little while ago a thread about itunes and it's sonic quality, because he came back from a profeesional mastering studio for a CD master.
why? he is a good musician, engineer and could easy use Ozone or T-Racks on his wonderfull Genelecs... he doesn't and there is a reason for it!
he is a musician and simply respects the work, experience and knowledge of a proffessionel mastering engineer, who is able to do a hell lot more to his music then he ever could.
i respect that too and do not missuse the term: Mastering.
enough said.
me attitude?, yes of course i do have a great one! (sorry coul'dnt resist!)
so i am sorry for missunderstanding, or maybee my english is closer to chinese?
and again for the record, i do not think that i am any better nor smarter then anyone else here on this forum, all i have is respect for things the way they are.
cheers
SubFunk.
http://www.turtletonestudio.comwhat exactly does the process of applying REAL MASTERING TO A PIECE OF MUSIC involve? point me to a link if you don't feel like explaining it.
go to gear list, have a look and this plus a hell lot of experience makes real mastering. (the gear list is just to give you a rough idea, but obviously can vary)
the experience and knowledge needed to know excactly what and when to apply to a track, or project or album is something i can't write down witthout creating a book the size of a bible. (thats why it takes sooo... long to become really good at it)
also for the record i never said that there are not literally thousands of recordings out which never have been professionally mastered, nor that the music is any worth or bad, because of that.
all i am saying is don't abuse the term, i am sensitive about it, cause it creates a missconception, of what it is and what it takes do it.
here are others who go off, when people call HD memory or something similar, that's all.
and again, yes you can enhance sound with a multitrack program like Live, and yes a good mix or production hardly need any mastering, still if you do that this way it's NOT mastering.
and thanks to modern marketing, companies get away with calling there suites, like Ozone or T-Racks mastering programs, they still remain toys, that they are not working to a certain extend, i never ever said, please do read propperly.
and i am still strongly against the missuse of the term. you wouldn't call a spoon a pan would you?
robert henke just posted a little while ago a thread about itunes and it's sonic quality, because he came back from a profeesional mastering studio for a CD master.
why? he is a good musician, engineer and could easy use Ozone or T-Racks on his wonderfull Genelecs... he doesn't and there is a reason for it!
he is a musician and simply respects the work, experience and knowledge of a proffessionel mastering engineer, who is able to do a hell lot more to his music then he ever could.
i respect that too and do not missuse the term: Mastering.
enough said.
me attitude?, yes of course i do have a great one! (sorry coul'dnt resist!)
so i am sorry for missunderstanding, or maybee my english is closer to chinese?
and again for the record, i do not think that i am any better nor smarter then anyone else here on this forum, all i have is respect for things the way they are.
cheers
SubFunk.
I tend to agree with thiskooki415 wrote:mastering=meh
mix it right the first time. if it sounds like crap mastering wont help.
the longer I've done this the more I've realised the best mastering of all is how well it is mixed in the first place
of course what SUbfunk is talking about as mastering is a different process - mastering engineers use programs like sadie and they are like the final quality control thinking only of getting it onto vinyl (or CD/whatever)
But I personally believe the less work you give the mastering engineer the better your mix is
forge wrote:
spot on! i as well agree, especially to:I tend to agree with this
the longer I've done this the more I've realised the best mastering of all is how well it is mixed in the first place
of course what SUbfunk is talking about as mastering is a different process - mastering engineers use programs like sadie and they are like the final quality control thinking only of getting it onto vinyl (or CD/whatever)
But I personally believe the less work you give the mastering engineer the better your mix is
finally someone who is not twisting my words in my mouth.the longer I've done this the more I've realised the best mastering of all is how well it is mixed in the first place
I personally believe the less work you give the mastering engineer the better your mix is
a good question to ask yourself would be this:
when digital media is your final media, are you going to have your track mastered
or are you just going to join the ranks in the volume war?
i consistently read folks description of mastering to eventually include "bringing up the level"..."squashing with compression"....usually(not always, of course) these processes will do no more than kill your dynamics in order to have percieved loudness. it's a habit in the industry which i feel lessens the quality of music
these days.
just something to consider when you do your final or mastering stage in post/production.
cheers
when digital media is your final media, are you going to have your track mastered
or are you just going to join the ranks in the volume war?
i consistently read folks description of mastering to eventually include "bringing up the level"..."squashing with compression"....usually(not always, of course) these processes will do no more than kill your dynamics in order to have percieved loudness. it's a habit in the industry which i feel lessens the quality of music
these days.
just something to consider when you do your final or mastering stage in post/production.
cheers
The term "mastering" is evolving, as hobbyists are now starting to get tools closer to what "real" mastering engineers use. There is still a HUGE difference between what the top mastering engineers use and what's available in the "prosumer" market, but that great divide is ever-shrinking thanks to technology.
Sub Funk is right in his point, as far as "real" mastering goes. A major label isn't going to put somehing out "mastered" in T-Racks or Ozone. Mastering engineers are in a class all by themselves, and they get paid justly for being the specialists they are. It is a big picture issue involving highly trained ears, flawless acoustics, $20K monitors, and hardware that most people (myself included) have never heard of. You can't get their tools off Sweetwater.com!
Now, on the flipside: As I said before, we have tools now that can give the average Joe a taste of the process; we can get our foot in the door. And that's a good thing! We have the tools to make our "home masters" sound better than ever (if used properly). Learning these tools will make everything we do sound better.
And if the time comes when we need to shell out big bucks for some "real" mastering, we'll (hopefully) be able to provide the mastering house with final mixes that are already pretty good, so the engineers can spend their time sweetening and enhancing, rather than correcting a bunch of problems.
In conclusion, there is a difference between "home mastering" and "pro mastering", but there's no reason why they can't peacefully co-exist!
Sub Funk is right in his point, as far as "real" mastering goes. A major label isn't going to put somehing out "mastered" in T-Racks or Ozone. Mastering engineers are in a class all by themselves, and they get paid justly for being the specialists they are. It is a big picture issue involving highly trained ears, flawless acoustics, $20K monitors, and hardware that most people (myself included) have never heard of. You can't get their tools off Sweetwater.com!
Now, on the flipside: As I said before, we have tools now that can give the average Joe a taste of the process; we can get our foot in the door. And that's a good thing! We have the tools to make our "home masters" sound better than ever (if used properly). Learning these tools will make everything we do sound better.
And if the time comes when we need to shell out big bucks for some "real" mastering, we'll (hopefully) be able to provide the mastering house with final mixes that are already pretty good, so the engineers can spend their time sweetening and enhancing, rather than correcting a bunch of problems.
In conclusion, there is a difference between "home mastering" and "pro mastering", but there's no reason why they can't peacefully co-exist!
Purrrfect Audio PC by Jim Roseberry
Edirol UA-1000, Korg PadKontrol, Dynaudio BM 5A's
REAPER, Live, Sound Forge
Edirol UA-1000, Korg PadKontrol, Dynaudio BM 5A's
REAPER, Live, Sound Forge
-
dj superflat
- Posts: 1279
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:31 pm
- Location: leadville, CO
some of you are confusing "good/great mastering" with "mastering." just as there's home "recording" and "recording" at electric lady for thousands per day, there's home "mastering" and "mastering" with bob ludwig at thousands per day. the fact that there are better mastering facilities and better mastering engineers does not mean amateurs aren't mastering. just as you can "produce" you nephew's lousy hardcore band in your basement with pro tools lite, you can "master" your songs with t-racks. the use of better tools or personnel towards the same end does not make it a different process. besides which, why would you bother by people throwing around the term mastering? do you scoff when some of the people on here claim to have "produced" or "mixed" something even if the result is crap? why do you think mastering is so sacrosanct (it's not) beginners can't even use the term? silly.
dj superflat wrote:
peace.
maybee we can call it:
mastering1
mastering2
LOL
some of you are confusing "good/great mastering" with "mastering." just as there's home "recording" and "recording" at electric lady for thousands per day, there's home "mastering" and "mastering" with bob ludwig at thousands per day.
fair enough, you are right here. maybee i just get so 'silly' or better say very anal about it because it is for my taste to often thrown into the same bucket. and i do see and acknowledge the big difference, there is.the use of better tools or personnel towards the same end does not make it a different process. besides which, why would you bother by people throwing around the term mastering? do you scoff when some of the people on here claim to have "produced" or "mixed" something even if the result is crap?
peace.
maybee we can call it:
mastering1
mastering2
LOL
what do you master in? I was thinking of getting PT or Logic to do this in. any thoughts there?Tarekith wrote:- It offers no way of adding CD markers.
- It has no wave editing tools.
- The sound quality (sorry, but I trust my ears too).
- It does not offer dither, accurate downsampling or bit rate reduction.
- Any time consolidation is performed the audio is normalized to 0dB.
- No options to remove DC offset, fix clicks and pops, or other unwanted audio artifacts.
- Metering in version 5 is sub par.
- No way to analyse the audio for peak values, RMS levels, or drop outs.
I'm sure if you had no other choice, an experienced engineer could turn out an ok master in Live. But it really has none of the tools needed for this process, other than the ability to apply plug ins.
rob;
Robtronic asks:
if you are on a Mac: SonicHD, Peak.
PC: SonicHD, Pyramix, Sequoia.
and then there is Sadie.
but the they ain't come cheap, especially Sadie, SonicHD, Pyramix and Sequoia.
Sequoia will set you back about 2.500 euros, even Peak with all bells and whistles (XT pro) is about 1200 US Dollar. don't know the excact prices for the others.
i personally use Peak5 XT pro, for advanced soundenhancement - not loudness war (sorry, had too:-)), CD codes, editing, etc.
Logic, PT, etc. are great multitrack, recording, production programms but don't deliever a lot of functions, possibilities you might need*
*that is of course depending on to what level you want to get into it and therefor what needs you have.
what do you master in? I was thinking of getting PT or Logic to do this in. any thoughts there?
if you are on a Mac: SonicHD, Peak.
PC: SonicHD, Pyramix, Sequoia.
and then there is Sadie.
but the they ain't come cheap, especially Sadie, SonicHD, Pyramix and Sequoia.
Sequoia will set you back about 2.500 euros, even Peak with all bells and whistles (XT pro) is about 1200 US Dollar. don't know the excact prices for the others.
i personally use Peak5 XT pro, for advanced soundenhancement - not loudness war (sorry, had too:-)), CD codes, editing, etc.
Logic, PT, etc. are great multitrack, recording, production programms but don't deliever a lot of functions, possibilities you might need*
*that is of course depending on to what level you want to get into it and therefor what needs you have.
Last edited by SubFunk on Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
dj superflat
- Posts: 1279
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:31 pm
- Location: leadville, CO
whether to master
the question of whether to obtain professional mastering these days is interesting. when you used to make records/CDs, with the attendant investment in just producing the copies, let alone recording the originals, it made a lot of sense to spend the cash on quality mastering. now that so many people are distributing digitally, in forms that are never really final (they may revisit the mix and repost the results, etc.), it seems harder to figure out when you need professional mastering or should just try to get by with what you can do yourself or what a decent engineer can do for you fairly cheaply. the other thing is that -- and i recognize this is just opinion and i'm probably wrong -- most electronic sounds seem to fit much better in the mix without the need of excessive compression and EQ. i'm probably biased b/c i come from world of guitar/bass/drums/vox, but synth sounds and such seem often to need far less by way of EQ and compression (or maybe it's that it's easier to find an appropriate sound in the first place, whereas with (e.g.) guitars, you're stuck with some pretty basic sounds to begin with). so matering seems less critical for electronic music, or at least the artistic, subtle mastering you get from the true pros.
I'm glad, though. it answered a lot of my questions about mastering