Mastering question

[lola]

Mastering is a deep art as well as a science. I think I'm at the point where I need to choose my battles and do the stuff I'm truly interested in. I definitely agree with the above post that anything can be learned given the time and inclination, but I will likely always go with a separate mastering engineer. To me, the ears, experience, great gear and outside input are all worth the price of bringing in another party to help whip my music into its final shape.

Also, many mastering engineers will let you pick their brains about technique and proper mixdown. I've learned a LOT talking to these guys, which further made the price of admission quite worth it.

- Nick

It's only deep art and science if your mix sucks.

A good master engineer sends you back to re do the mix, simple.
They are audiophiles, the ones i know can earn easy money by doing a master of a bad mixed product. But the have credibility, they put their name on it , on the finished product.
Like my all time favourite Herb powers, who is responsible for many many classics, its his finishing touch that makes it gold.

[img][img]http://www.pmmastering.com/history/HerbInterview1.gif[/img]

Have you ever let a pro master engineer master your tracks?

[knotkranky]

^ Hmm, i dunno bro. I'm definitely from the "Mastering Shmastering camp.

Responsible for the classics? His finishing touches makes it gold? No way dude.

Do you know how hard it would be to fuck up a Dave Pensado mix of a Teddy Riley track? Anybody could master that.

If he's your favorite, then you just like the records

[Pasha]

Sorry to get here late..
Provided that I'm a two process guy (Mix Down and then Master a stereo track) I have a question for the experts:
I have several stereo mixed songs now and I want to give them the final go. They were made thru the years with Live so they got better as long as my learning & understanding did and through incorporation of every suggestion here, especially Tarekith's. Now I have the following options, what is best?

1) Import every single song into Live (1 song 1 project) and Master from there
2) Import all song into 1 project (many songs 1 project)
2a) Apply Mastering Effect Chain on each track (1 track = 1 song) and render each track
2b) Apply Mastering Effect Chain only on the Master and export tracks one by one (Mastering Effect Chain varies between exports)

My idea is to have all songs with the same volume at the end of the project and possibly sounding 'with the same character'.
So what's the best way?

- Best
- Pasha

[pepezabala]

Sorry to get here late..
Provided that I'm a two process guy (Mix Down and then Master a stereo track) I have a question for the experts:
I have several stereo mixed songs now and I want to give them the final go. They were made thru the years with Live so they got better as long as my learning & understanding did and through incorporation of every suggestion here, especially Tarekith's. Now I have the following options, what is best?

1) Import every single song into Live (1 song 1 project) and Master from there
2) Import all song into 1 project (many songs 1 project)
2a) Apply Mastering Effect Chain on each track (1 track = 1 song) and render each track
2b) Apply Mastering Effect Chain only on the Master and export tracks one by one (Mastering Effect Chain varies between exports)

My idea is to have all songs with the same volume at the end of the project and possibly sounding 'with the same character'.
So what's the best way?

- Best
- Pasha

I am not an expert, but recently I had to remaster a bunch of tracks for a theater piece. They were different recordings, from different sources (vinyl-records, CDs, newly produced stuff) and needed to sound consistent, same volume etc.

I put all tracks on different channels so I could compare easily. The recordings needed to get pushed a little as they were not "loud" enough compared to the other stuff. I used the W1 limiter for that.
On another track I applied some EQ to cut some high frequencies.

I compared the volumes at normal listening volume, compared them again at very low volume and at high volume. I had a second listener with me to confirm my impressions. What also helps is to put off the screen and only listen. Staring at the meters can give you a wrong impression of what is really going on.

Then I rendered all tracks individually and burnt them on a CD that they can use for the play.

[SubFunk]

It's a simple chain after a perfect mixdown, mastering is the icing of the cake, any attempt to 'fix' a mediocre mix is wrong! And people who do think (and that just seems to be the majority) don't understand the purpose, mastering is to add the little shine and not to fix a bad production or crap mixdown. Period.

[evon]

hey thanks for the fantastic input there. it is silly that person might think they can mix better than a pro, sure. but it's way more silly to think people care when you rant and rave about it.

furthermore, all mixing and mastering engineers started with zero knowledge. who are you to say that any person in this thread doesn't have the ability to learn the needed skills to do the job well?

This is why this thinking is flawed. Time. First you need perfectly balanced room if you indeed want product to be professional. Have one? No. Second Bob Katz or any other mastering engineer worth a crap would tell any artists not to master their own material. This fact law is mastering 101 world wide. You see nine inch nails, The Beatles remasters or the rolling stones master their own music? No. The argument that "all mixing and mastering engineers started with zero knowledge" is true but what a shallow & meaningless statement. Of course they didn't, but what about 30 years experience under belt now? You deny that? Anyone in this thread have professional 30 years of mastering experience in million dollar room? Tumble weed rolls by. Of course not. And your "who are you to say that any person in this thread doesn't have the ability to learn the needed skills to do the job well?" is over top asinine. Any 45 year old in this thread with 20 years of professional mastering experience here? No? Anyone in this thread have ability to land a 747 by themselves because they bought a boeing manual? No. Same goes for mastering. By the time a 22 year old electro house kid on here learns to be a mastering guru he'll be 50. I think you take mastering a little too lightly in my opinion. I do agree that some people on here will have the ability to master with the best of them. When they have grandchildren and 200 million records under their belt. Your argument is so shallow its like say about a group of high school students "You don't think they can all become naval pilot aces and win top gun"?

You don't know anything about the intricacies of mastering by your post I can tell or respect mastering as the art it is.

all I was trying to say is take a chill pill and let people learn a little about mastering. you're getting your panties in a bunch raving about it. personally I like to mix and master my own music when it's for personal use or live use. If I was gonna put out a pro album I'd use a pro but for now I enjoy making my mix my own, it's part of the artistic experience for me.

chill out and let people learn.

the fact of the matter is if you're ranting and raving about something you're in the wrong state of mind to expect people to receive what you're saying with open arms.

I couldnt have said it better, this is my experience also.

[evon]

And all that million dollar gear and room to make it sound good on a tin can speaker on my radio...why not just master it on the tin can speaker in a little shack..probably would save you all that million dollars and who to tell might sound a lot better too.

Well, the idea of monitoring in general is that you create a listening environment that is free from artefacts. If you master or mix or produce on a system that boosts C2 and almost kills C#2 in your listening position you will not write a bassline that contains C2 and C#2 or you will EQ total bullshit. Sure you can mix /master / produce on a super nonlinear system, and it sounds great on that system. But if you play it back on another shitty system, chances are high that it will sound horrible. And chances are good that if you go with the production to a real good system, because you love the music and want to hear it really good, you will be massively disappointed.

You can play Piano music on a cheap keyboard. But you can also play it on a nice Grand Piano. What is more satisfying both for the musician and for the listener?
Only because some people will listen to the concert on bad cheap seats does not mean the sound should be cheap for the rest.

Robert

Now I can realy appreciate that..makes a whole lot of sense

[Tarekith]

Sorry to get here late..
Provided that I'm a two process guy (Mix Down and then Master a stereo track) I have a question for the experts:
I have several stereo mixed songs now and I want to give them the final go. They were made thru the years with Live so they got better as long as my learning & understanding did and through incorporation of every suggestion here, especially Tarekith's. Now I have the following options, what is best?

1) Import every single song into Live (1 song 1 project) and Master from there
2) Import all song into 1 project (many songs 1 project)
2a) Apply Mastering Effect Chain on each track (1 track = 1 song) and render each track
2b) Apply Mastering Effect Chain only on the Master and export tracks one by one (Mastering Effect Chain varies between exports)

My idea is to have all songs with the same volume at the end of the project and possibly sounding 'with the same character'.
So what's the best way?

- Best
- Pasha

I think it depends on how much work each track needs, especially if you're needing a lot of plug ins on each track. If you put them all in one project on seperate tracks, with the plug ins for each on that track, it would make it easier to listen to each track and compare for overall sound and level. Not that you couldn't do that one by one too, but it might be more time consuming.

[Moody]

I would place them in the same project and automate my adjustments with envelopes; though this is just another idiots opinion. Carry on!

[Hidden Driveways]

Pash- I would use dedicated mastering software for a multiple song project. I think the space between songs and the crossfades between songs are as important of a decision to make as any other in the production process.

Mac = Peak
PC = Wavelab

[lola]

^ Hmm, i dunno bro. I'm definitely from the "Mastering Shmastering camp.

Responsible for the classics? His finishing touches makes it gold? No way dude.

Do you know how hard it would be to fuck up a Dave Pensado mix of a Teddy Riley track? Anybody could master that.

If he's your favorite, then you just like the records

Yea i like the records, but that has nothing to do with it.
I know what the power of a good master holds, but i am experienced with vinyl mastering, and there is a huge difference from the original and the final master.
The fact that you point out a dave pensado mix, why did they choose for herb ?... because he has that flavour.
Explain me : Why is it Sharon Redd, Indeep, Nairobi, all have that cream on top? ...or are day all mixed by Dave pensando?

[Pasha]

Thanks for all the interesting answers, make me wanna try them all!
I'll let you know when I'll try it over the next week end...

- Best
- Pasha

[Pasha]

Sorry to get here late..
Provided that I'm a two process guy (Mix Down and then Master a stereo track) I have a question for the experts:
I have several stereo mixed songs now and I want to give them the final go. They were made thru the years with Live so they got better as long as my learning & understanding did and through incorporation of every suggestion here, especially Tarekith's. Now I have the following options, what is best?

1) Import every single song into Live (1 song 1 project) and Master from there
2) Import all song into 1 project (many songs 1 project)
2a) Apply Mastering Effect Chain on each track (1 track = 1 song) and render each track
2b) Apply Mastering Effect Chain only on the Master and export tracks one by one (Mastering Effect Chain varies between exports)

My idea is to have all songs with the same volume at the end of the project and possibly sounding 'with the same character'.
So what's the best way?

- Best
- Pasha

I think it depends on how much work each track needs, especially if you're needing a lot of plug ins on each track. If you put them all in one project on seperate tracks, with the plug ins for each on that track, it would make it easier to listen to each track and compare for overall sound and level. Not that you couldn't do that one by one too, but it might be more time consuming.

Thanks . My big concern was that using each single track as the master (with no plug in on the master track itself) could lead to less quality because the sound should have to go through the master track anyway.
This is opposed to the one by one method where you put plugs in the master track.

- Best
- Pasha

[Tarekith]

Shouldn't make any difference as long as the master fader was left at 0dB.

[knotkranky]

^ Hmm, i dunno bro. I'm definitely from the "Mastering Shmastering camp.

Responsible for the classics? His finishing touches makes it gold? No way dude.

Do you know how hard it would be to fuck up a Dave Pensado mix of a Teddy Riley track? Anybody could master that.

If he's your favorite, then you just like the records

Yea i like the records, but that has nothing to do with it.
I know what the power of a good master holds, but i am experienced with vinyl mastering, and there is a huge difference from the original and the final master.
The fact that you point out a dave pensado mix, why did they choose for herb ?... because he has that flavour.
Explain me : Why is it Sharon Redd, Indeep, Nairobi, all have that cream on top? ...or are day all mixed by Dave pensando?

Actually the big mixers have a large pool of mastering dudes they like. Regardless, record companies decide who gets used and it's basically decided on availability and that's it. Nobody just goes to one guy for a sound. They can't wait like that anyway. The fact is Herb was available to do the job at that moment. He may not have even been a first pick, just available.

Why do those cats have a creamy top end? The only way to get that is to mix creamy or more important yet, produce/record creamy sounds in a creamy way. A screwed up mix on the top-end doesn;t go creamy in mastering, there's got be cream there to begin with. And no, all are not mixed by Dave Pensado, but they're all mixed by dudes who know how to mix and record creamy. I only mention Dave cuz he's one of a bunch of killer mixers that don't need that kind of help in mastering. I've worked with some of the greatest mastering dudes around, it often goes fast and is boring as hell cuz it was great to begin with and mastering guys love it that way. There are lots of great mixers that are boring to master (so to speak) and i'm one of them The mix is 90% and mastering can be very helpful with another 10%. If the mix is rotten, mastering can be 49% helpful, but sonic success is in the mix. Other than melding disparaging mixes and mastering kitchen duties, sonically mixing IS mastering except with more channels. Cheers mate