Mastering question

[leedsquietman]

Depends what you're doing. If you are mixing and will be mastering for yourself, then it's not so crucial about leaving off mastering plugs because you know exactly which processes have occurred and will compensate for that in fine tuning the master.

Although I personally tend to leave off buss compression and avoid over EQing etc, take the mix out into Soundforge and use all my mastering plugins from there to get the end result. I use Soundforge for mastering because it has better metering, and is better for cleaning up fades, edits etc and has all the analysis tools for calculating clipping, peak and average RMS levels etc.

[Tarekith]

He specifically said he's not mixing through the plug ins, so???

I can't see a technical reason why one method would be better than the first, which is mainly what i was getting at in my first post. The only real benefit I could see from doing it as a two step process was if your project was at 24/44.1 and you rendered the mixdown at say 24/96 or 24/88, then did the mastering in a new project set to that sample rate. In theory there's some benefit to this, but I dont know if you'd be able to hear a difference in the real world.

I think it's safe to say most people do it as a twostep method, but I know many producers who create steller work doing it all in one project too. I think it mainly comes down to which workflow you prefer more than anything.

[Superchibisan]

or which workflow has been industry standard for 50+ years...

[Tarekith]

Not understanding why you are so against the idea of keeping it all in one session, if he specifically said it'll still be a two step process? Definitely it's ideal to send it to a mastering engineer (lord knows I'd love more clients), but not everyone will so certainly alternatives can be discussed. There's very little technical reason not to keep it in one session, unless I'm missing something other than the sample rate issue I give above?

And really, 50 year standards? No one even imagined a DAW 50 years ago, so I fail to see how that applies? 50 years ago people were mastering directly to the cutting lathe, not like the industry is still doing that with any regularity either

[dubpixel]

thanks for the patience, and thanks to tarekith for an answer.
the best thing about digital medium is the ability to redo something...
so even if you did use a plug on your master during the process, it's quite simple and easy to change, no? industry standards from 50 years ago were created before the tools we have now... not disagreeing that they were made for a reason,
(when i began recording there was only cutting up tape, now that is a decisive process you have to live with!) but perhaps new tools can allow new approaches.
cheers all

[Superchibisan]

uh, they defo just sent their finished files to mastering engineers in what was, much more than a two step process 50 years ago.

the reason i don't want him to master during mixing is because i highly doubt he's the ear to actually work as a mastering engineer. mastering is a very very fine art that is learned in a whole different way than mixing. mixing is whats most important for an artist. if anything is to be mastered, the label will get it done because at that point, it will be reaching distribution stages. (and they WON'T be commissioning the artist to do the master...)

[dubpixel]

uh, they defo just sent their finished files to mastering engineers in what was, much more than a two step process 50 years ago.

the reason i don't want him to master during mixing is because i highly doubt he's the ear to actually work as a mastering engineer. mastering is a very very fine art that is learned in a whole different way than mixing. mixing is whats most important for an artist. if anything is to be mastered, the label will get it done because at that point, it will be reaching distribution stages. (and they WON'T be commissioning the artist to do the master...)

well, since you don't know me, it'd be a mistake to make that judgement.
not that i'd listen
and btw, the labels i've released on in the past have had versions rejected by me due to poor mastering (usually over-reduction of dynamics). so you never know...
sometimes it is best left up to the artist.

[Tarekith]

uh, they defo just sent their finished files to mastering engineers in what was, much more than a two step process 50 years ago.

the reason i don't want him to master during mixing is because i highly doubt he's the ear to actually work as a mastering engineer. mastering is a very very fine art that is learned in a whole different way than mixing. mixing is whats most important for an artist. if anything is to be mastered, the label will get it done because at that point, it will be reaching distribution stages. (and they WON'T be commissioning the artist to do the master...)

Well he already said he's not going to be mastering while mixing, so I dont see the issue. Otherwise if you read the link I posted earlier, you'll see I'm in complete agreement with you regarding artists mastering their own work.

[quandry]

as for the old school days, yes, they do mix through compressors. but its really an option. and its an option i'd rather leave to the professionals.

Though in general I'd agree about leaving the limiting to the mastering engineer or at least the "mastering stage" of song production, many, if not the majority of modern big-time label audio productions and most of the famous engineers/producers I read about use a compressor on the mix buss as I described above. ymmv and all that, but it's not just some old school techinique--it is still heavily used (if not overused) today. A compressor on the mix buss does not equal mastering, the use of it I'm referring to is as I describe above, to tighten up a mix.

[leedsquietman]

if you send files for mastering, you should already have a specific set of goals in mind, otherwise the Mastering Engineer is in the dark.

For example, if you know that the labels want more dynamics (quite uncommon in this day and age, but something I applaud), the ME needs to know. Most mastering engineers are willing to make one or two revisions to the work, and are much more likely to produce a mastered version that meets requirements if they know what the goals are in the first instance.

Just handing off a mix to a ME with no information is going to get you a pretty random result. They are likely to go by what the common references in that genre are in terms of loudness, dynamics, and processing.

It is always preferable if you have budget to get mastering done by a 3rd party, preferably one with lots of experience in that field, they will usually have better equipment and also if they're doing their job probably, will check for phasing issues and reference it across multiple sound sources to ensure the mix translates well on all mediums.

If you have no budget, or are an experienced audio engineer, then there's no reason why you shouldn't attempt to do it for yourself. You might even prefer the results, but bear in mind, even if your mix does sound better to you, most respectable, experienced MEs mastered mix should translate better across a wide range of sound sources. But there are plenty of pirates who will just whack on some preset and hit process and do nothing else except charge you for doing virtually nothing.

[Nod]

That said, I think it is an definitely overstatement to say not to use a compressor on the mix buss--this is a VERY common technique that tons of great high-end productions use--the SSL and Neve boards have buss compresssors that are often used with 2:1 or 4:1 ratios with about 2-4 dB of gain reduction for tightening/fattening up a stereo mix. Read any book about mixing and studio production to learn more about that trick. Again, it's best to get the mix tight with nothing on the master, then, as your mix is getting close to there, throw on a compressor on the master and see how it goes.

+1 to the above - don't forget that a good comp/limiter, ie: dynamic reduction tools, can also tell you a lot about how your mastered mix may end up turning out. Occasionally, during mixing a track, you may reduce the dynamics between sections to a degree where, once mastered, you've got pretty one level throughout the entire track - and some people/tracks/genres might even find that desirable - whereas I sometimes revisit a track and just marginally automate the overall level of the master track thru sections to keep the 'punch' even after mastering.

[leedsquietman]

Using SSL and Neve bus compression is OK if it is for a specific purpose and not overdone and if the mastering engineer knows about it in advance so as to compensate for it. This is especially common in rock and electronic dance music. SSL bus compression is not something you would consider on an acoustic singer songwriter, or jazz session, etc.

Quite often, people whack on too quick an attack, at too high a compression ratio and reducing 8-10db of gain and not just a couple of dB. When this happens, you might as well not bother sending it on to a mastering engineer.

[quandry]

Using SSL and Neve bus compression is OK if it is for a specific purpose and not overdone and if the mastering engineer knows about it in advance so as to compensate for it. This is especially common in rock and electronic dance music. SSL bus compression is not something you would consider on an acoustic singer songwriter, or jazz session, etc.

Quite often, people whack on too quick an attack, at too high a compression ratio and reducing 8-10db of gain and not just a couple of dB. When this happens, you might as well not bother sending it on to a mastering engineer.

what he said. I agree with others, like Bob Katz, who would say that there is wayyy too much compression and limiting in modern recordings, in part due to a desire to be the "loudest" (or at least compete with other loud stuff out there). I actually just got comfortable using the compression on the master, but in small doses like slowest attack, fastest release and 2:1 or 4:1 ratios for 2-4 dB of gain reduction...subtle, but definitely changes the sound some. Agreed, probably not a good idea for subtle, highly dynamic, or acoustic music....

[cupcakecore]

thanks guys. i do not mix with the master plugins on but i have read that it is generally a good idea to make a mixdown first so i have the answer to my question. yes mastering is a fine art but it is just as much as composing a track is. the difference being there is a standard for mastering unlike a song so it is very easy to fuck things up. thats what i think anyway!

[Hidden Driveways]

Three things I know about the world:

1) Some people consider audio mastering a fine art.
2) Some people spend over $5000.00 on a single 10 foot speaker cable.
3) Goya crackers are a lot cheaper than Ritz crackers.

I can't afford to get any of my music mastered professionally. Until I can do so, cheap and dirty mastering solutions are my only option. I figured out my little mastering method so a DJ wouldn't have to boost up the gain on their mixer when they play my tune, because my homemade mastering gets my work up to an acceptable volume level.

Shortly after I figured out my two step work flow, I tried it again as a one step. I put the Saturator and Limi plugs in the master track of a multi-track Session, and I can just say this: it made it sound a lot worse. The two step method is fine for me.