What Is The Process Of Mastering?

[JamTimeMusic]

Hey all,

I and my co-writer are currently recording our band album at our home studios. We have learnt so much about recording, mixing over the years but mastering is something that we don't really have much knowledge about.

I've read a lot of the posts here on the site and although I have seen lots of recommendations about what programs to use and read the debate of actually who should do the mastering, e.g. fresh ears or self, but I come out of that thinking "But what is mastering?"

At the mixing stage I do my EQing so what's left for the mastering? Is it just limiting or something else I have missed?

I appreciate your time responding to this.

Oh and one of the posts I read somewhere said 'If you have access to the raw files rather than just a wav of the entire song then you don't need to use mastering effects on the entire track because you can get it right at the mixing stage!

Maybe you can help?

Cheers

JD

[Coises]

Mastering is “whatever it takes” to prepare the best possible master — that is, a source from which copies will be produced — for a given project and a given target media (e.g., pressed CD, CD-R, LPs, DVD for video albums or movies, etc.).

You normally mix each track in isolation, on good monitor speakers, trying to get the best sound you can. In mastering, everything has to be brought into a cohesive whole; this involves details like getting the right amount of silence between one track and the next, but also making sure that the tracks sound like they belong together — for example, so the listener isn’t jumping up to change the volume from one track to the next. Mastering also takes the limitations of the media into account, as well as what listeners expect.

What follows from that is that if you are going to have a mastering session, you should bring copies of the final mixes without finishing effects like EQ, compression or limiting applied to the full mix (you can always bring one with those effects, too, to demonstrate what you have in mind) — and obviously, keep the full resolution you have: don’t reduce to 16 bits, resample to 44.1k, or dither. I’m pretty sure most mastering engineers aren’t going to want to remix your tracks for you, but they’re set up to apply the polish.

The consensus seems to be that professional mastering provides good “bang-for-the-buck” if your object is a professional product. If (like me) you’re an amateur/hobbyist, you do what you can on your own. If (like me, so far), you’re an amateur who is only producing *.mp3 files in isolation and not preparing an “album,” there’s little or no reason to have a “mastering” step that’s separate from the mixing step.¹

Oh and one of the posts I read somewhere said 'If you have access to the raw files rather than just a wav of the entire song then you don't need to use mastering effects on the entire track because you can get it right at the mixing stage!

I’m going to stick my neck out and say that’s just plain wrong.

Even if you “master in the mix” (as I suggested above, a bad idea unless you’re an amateur producing only isolated, individual songs), putting non-linear effects (e.g., compression, multi-band compression, limiting) on a mix is not the same as applying the same effects to each part. (Non-level-dependent EQ and reverb are linear, so in principle you can apply those to every part separately and get the same effect as applying them to the mix... if you can keep it all straight, and your computer can handle it!)

However, as noted above, ordinarily you should leave compression, limiting and EQ of the final mix for the mastering stage if you will have a mastering stage. (That applies even if you’re mastering yourself using the very same plug-ins you would use in your mix, because it’s only in mastering that you’ll be able to judge the results as they fit into a complete project.)

---

¹But I’m now questioning my own judgment, since I notice that as I go from one song to another on my own site, the levels and sounds don’t match up very well. One day I should probably take everything I have and “master” it all to match, then try to master each new track to the same standard... yeah, that’s gonna happen soon...

[maxtor2290]

JamTimeMusic:

Coises is essentially correct in his take on mastering.

Basically, mastering is taking a final mix of multiple tracks and manipulating the frequency spectrum to make the overall sound of the mix acceptable to the listening public. Mastering is usually genre specific, at least in the sense of acceptable frequency ranges.

It also removes errant or annoying frequencies from the recording, sets the db level, either up or down, to a basic industry standard.

As for mixing and mastering in the same process, I can't tell you how many times when mastering projects for others that I wished I had the separate tracks to mix a little better. It would have made the process much - much easier. The general rule is to not "screw" with frequencies any more than you have to and always favor reduction in a frequency band over increasing one. Sometimes the mix settles better if you reduce - say - a 100k by 1 1/2 to 2 rather than increase 800K by 1 (just an example).

Commercial recordings are generally compressed all to hell in order to get the volume levels you hear.

Personally, my own stuff, I mix and master in the same program using individual channels to set everything and then mastering with the master effects channel. (EQ, Compressor, stereo imaging, sometimes a lite chorus to tighten the mix, and etc.

Just don't record, mix, and master all in the same day. Your ear loses some of its ability to discern the frequencies as it hears everything for long periods of time. The least amount of anything I can do to it the better I believe the final product is.

Hope this helps..

max...

[Roflcopter]

I can't tell you how many times when mastering projects for others that I wished I had the separate tracks to mix a little better. It would have made the process much - much easier.

In that light, this may also provide an interesting read...

[maxtor2290]

Roflcopter:

It is an interesting read and describes stem methods in detail.

Personally, I don't and wouldn't use that method for mastering.

I do use auxiliary grouping's in "live" sound, after the mix is set, in order to control the vocals (lead and backup) overall and the drums overall - primarily (They are the two things that tend to be most dynamic in the mix).

Basically I group them because of how they sit in the mix. I prefer instruments like bass, guitar, keyboard, and etc to be controlled individually.

But, there is a big difference between mastering a recording and producing live sound.

Again, it's a great read and may be something for others to utilize. If they can, great! As with most things musical, while there is some basic standards, there is no specific right way to get there. In the end, if it sounds good - do it!

max...

Edited April 27, 2011 by maxtor2290

[JamTimeMusic]

I could swear I responded to this already! Hmm.

Thanks guys for the replies. I think I have a better understanding of what I need to do or at least aim to do.

I will let you know how I get on

JD