Mastering

[john]

Hey

Mastering. The dark art.

I know there's a poll on the topic, but I thought it would be good to try and get an idea about what mastering means to you? How much do you know about it?

Cheers

John

[sub7th]

Gadzooks.

Mixing and mastering are my kryptonite.

I plan to spend some time this weekend listening and learning though.

[Chokai]

SKP audio - Always use, top notch! IM just plain crap at mastering. I just use loads of compression. Not always the best approach..

[Prometheus]

If you can mix, you can learn to master. The skills required are precisely the same... Mastering engineers will tell you, I had to do a bit of "interpolation" here and it'll cost you an extra fifty dollars for it.

"What did that involve?" you may well ask.

"It's the progressive calculation of a parameter between key frames." he might reply.

Interpolation is the art of guessing at what data should be at a place where there is a glitch by looking at what is round about it. In fact, everyone interpolates probably every day to fill in gaps in ratty data, during converstatiions, reading documents with smudges on them, things like that... Using context to understand the meaning of words is a type of interpolation. A mastering engineer will probably use a piece of software to do this for him and be required to employ very little effort and even less skill in doing so.

Hard Limiting:

Using a stone wall limiter takes a bit of practice, but is certainly a skill that any mixing engineer can acquire with a steep learnign curve. It's advisable though to peg the signal at -0.1dBs rather than zero to account for differences in playback devices and be on the safe side...

EQing:

Anyone familiar with mixing should know about this. Whether using EQ in mixing or mastering, same principles apply.

If a mix is properly finished, then mastering should be done with a minimal amount of hassle. If not, then you can never turn a bad mix into a great master. All you'll achieve is some damage limitation...

[Locke]

Although most of us produce, compose and record music in different ways, the general trend is to rationalise mastering down to a few key processes and techniques. It's not rocket science, but does require a different approach to the tracking/capturing and mixing of the music.

It's best to, of course, listen with a really critical ear to your mix in order to find sonic problems that others may find with your raw mix. Ill-defined bass, aggressive mids, lack of air and presence, for example. The first step of mastering is to really identify these. A good engineer will take into account how a master will translate when played back on different systems or in different listening environments. That's why it's good to have a few different pairs of monitors or headphones in order to hear this... don't, and I stress don't, master on one pair of headphones or speakers especially if they're low end and crappy. You'll need a setup that offers an extended frequency range, low noise floor. Bass representation is a must and critical in the mastering process... if your system doesn't really represent the 20-100khz frequency range that well you'll benefit from buying a decent sub. Also, listen and compare to commercial recordings... put a few rough mixes on your iPod and listen to them side by side with a professionally finished and mastered song, but try not to do a straight A/B reference, listen to more than just one track in comparison. It's better to have a rounded knowledge of a mastering than just listening to a mastered track in comparison to an unmastered one.

It's well worth investing in some dedicated mastering equipment, whether software packages or mastering equalizers and compressors. I personally use iZotope's Ozone 3 for my mastering, it's an excellent piece of software... around £200 I think.

[Nightwolf]

don't, and I stress don't, master on one pair of headphones or speakers especially if they're low end and crappy. You'll need a setup that offers an extended frequency range, low noise floor.

Nice post Locke

You mentioned it, I just wanted to stress "Use more than one set up"

not just high end, get a crappy boombox to make sure it sounds ok even worst case

[FinnArild]

What about multi-band compression? I sorta understand what it does (at least if that is compressing seperate frequency ranges differently), but it would be great with some tips and tricks. Are there other tools?

[Streetervillemusic]

Although most of us produce, compose and record music in different ways, the general trend is to rationalise mastering down to a few key processes and techniques. It's not rocket science, but does require a different approach to the tracking/capturing and mixing of the music.

It's best to, of course, listen with a really critical ear to your mix in order to find sonic problems that others may find with your raw mix. Ill-defined bass, aggressive mids, lack of air and presence, for example. The first step of mastering is to really identify these. A good engineer will take into account how a master will translate when played back on different systems or in different listening environments. That's why it's good to have a few different pairs of monitors or headphones in order to hear this... don't, and I stress don't, master on one pair of headphones or speakers especially if they're low end and crappy. You'll need a setup that offers an extended frequency range, low noise floor. Bass representation is a must and critical in the mastering process... if your system doesn't really represent the 20-100khz frequency range that well you'll benefit from buying a decent sub. Also, listen and compare to commercial recordings... put a few rough mixes on your iPod and listen to them side by side with a professionally finished and mastered song, but try not to do a straight A/B reference, listen to more than just one track in comparison. It's better to have a rounded knowledge of a mastering than just listening to a mastered track in comparison to an unmastered one.

It's well worth investing in some dedicated mastering equipment, whether software packages or mastering equalizers and compressors. I personally use iZotope's Ozone 3 for my mastering, it's an excellent piece of software... around £200 I think.

Well said Locke...

Allot of people think that squeezing the mix and adding tons of gain is the key to mastering. The problem with mastering these days is it has become a level war as to who can get the loudest most in your face 2 mix. A good master however may be a little hotter than your original but do not over kill it. In the digital world you just cannot replace head room that we once had in the analog world. Tape for example you could throw more gain and the end result was a fatter mix, with very little distortion. But the distortion you ended up with was a cleaner distortion. Make sense? When I mix I try to use only enough compression to control the instrumentation and tighten the mix. If you use allot of compression during your initial mix, what do you think happens when you squeeze it even more during your mastering process. Things that become to loud and harsh have to be dealt with and things that are low and muddy also have to be dealt with. What happened to the nice transients that are now missing or tucked away somewhere in compression land. When you mix, do not forget about "AIR" in the mix...it is the breath that balances your mix and brings it to life. If you look around on the net you can find some useful tips on using spectrum analyzers and stereo imagers. Allot of analyzers also point out phasing issues. There are some free ones out there you can play with. Check a mix and see where the problem areas are. Then check a commercial mix and see what the difference is. You will be surprised what you find. If you decide to do your own mastering think about room treatment...nothing expensive..you can make some really nice room treatments for very little money. Sometimes we take friendly transients out of a mix because the room makes them bitter or harsh to our ears. Do like Locke said...take your favorite commercial CD and listen to it....listen to it very carefully. Pay close attention to the image. Listen how everything is proportioned and has it's place. Louder is not always better. But being able to hear everything in phase at the right place at the right time will make it seem louder even if it is not. Once you have a balance then add your gain. Trust your ear. If it bothers you it will most likely bother others as well, if sounds good to you then chances are it will sound good to others. Just do not over do it...This also will sound funny, but do not over think it either.

SMG

[tgrover]

Lot of people on here have said they are good at this...... could those people post a song???

I have sat in on numerous mastering sessions and to me this is something that is far more detail than just mixing - and something i would personally never attempt. Personally i cant remember hearing a song on songstuff that passed as a well mastered song - with the exception of some of finn's music from his first album i think.

Also be interesting hearing what hardware/software is being used by the people that said they are good mastering engineers.

i hear a lot of people using ozone and thinking thats well mastered.

[Streetervillemusic]

Lot of people on here have said they are good at this...... could those people post a song???

I have sat in on numerous mastering sessions and to me this is something that is far more detail than just mixing - and something i would personally never attempt. Personally i cant remember hearing a song on songstuff that passed as a well mastered song - with the exception of some of finn's music from his first album i think.

Also be interesting hearing what hardware/software is being used by the people that said they are good mastering engineers.

i hear a lot of people using ozone and thinking thats well mastered.

You can visit our myspace page at www.myspace.com/streetervillemusicgroup

I have place up 2 samples of the same song...one unmastered on mastered

[john]

Hi Tim

There are different approaches to mastering, and any mastering engineer will tell you that the mastering role has changed massively over the last two decades. The modern trend is for heavily compressed and stone wall limited tracks with very little in the way of dynamics. Everything is about track volume while retaining clarity. That's why when you listen to 80s tracks and earlier the volume is a lot lower.

Personally I like the older style, because I love the dynamics, but that is just my taste. Mastering the older or newer way is not wrong, it is a matter of taste.

I've mastered some more dance/electronica tracks in the more modern style. It is time consuming but worth it if you are after that high volume "radio play" sound.

Cheers

John

[Bitstream]

I find that experimentation with various effects, eq etc is the best policy making every track unique. There are no guidelines that way and the song begins to produce itself requiring some of the parts to change to blend with the new master mix. Of course, there are some elements that are pretty much a necessity for radio mixes eg compression. And vocal touchups are all too common now reducing studio time costs & also providing a neat track. However, I have yet to do this on my own tracks which is plainly obvious

[tgrover]

Hi John, I much prefere the fidelity of the older recordings. Nothing is comprimised. Heavily compressed songs just to get them as loud as the last song i think is an awful trend.

I downloaded a song the other day called let it out. Was from a recent TV advert. It was the loudest song i have heard and totally shook my speakers. I would expect an ametuer to produce something that bad but this was done by a pro.

The mastering guy i use generally goes for somewhere in between. I would prefere my songs to sound good than sound loud

[Prometheus]

If you are given a job to master a mixdown that is already well mixed by a professional engineer, then you certainly don't need to be an alien from the distant planet Masteron whose cochlea becomes infinitely more powerful when he's exposed to the radiation signature of a yellow Sun.

When you are asked to remaster some old tapes that have lost forty percent of their oxide, this is another matter and you would certainly need some shit hot specialist equipment and knowledge that would possibly outside the domain of an ordinary mixing engineer.

This distinction is very important. A lot of the mysticism that is propogated by mastering engineers is a throw back to the days when mastering was done onto vinyl and it was notoriously difficult. Any low frequency phasing problems could wreck the needle on your very expensive cutting rig, and so mastering was the sole provenence of the specialist...

In my experience, anyone who asks me to record and mix a song for them has also expected a mastered product at the end. Most people do not have the money to pay one engineer who specializes in miking techniques, one who specializes in mixing and another who specializes in mastering, they expect me, or whomsoever they work with, to have some knowledge of all these things...

One thing is 100% sure though. If you never research and then try your hand at mastering, you can absolutely guarantee that you'll never be able to do it...

Edited May 11, 2008 by Prometheus

[Prometheus]

Hi John, I much prefere the fidelity of the older recordings. Nothing is comprimised. Heavily compressed songs just to get them as loud as the last song i think is an awful trend.

I downloaded a song the other day called let it out. Was from a recent TV advert. It was the loudest song i have heard and totally shook my speakers. I would expect an ametuer to produce something that bad but this was done by a pro.

The mastering guy i use generally goes for somewhere in between. I would prefere my songs to sound good than sound loud

I suppose it's very much a case of when in Rome. These days, if you do not master a track so that it is averaging around -11dB in power, it will not be playable next to a commercial product. If you master a track so that it averages more than -10dB, then broadcasters will not play it. You've got to tread that tightrope when you're mastering, becuase no Harry Nyquist has ever come along to precisely quantify what level music should be mastered at...

[Prometheus]

Lot of people on here have said they are good at this...... could those people post a song???

I have sat in on numerous mastering sessions and to me this is something that is far more detail than just mixing - and something i would personally never attempt. Personally i cant remember hearing a song on songstuff that passed as a well mastered song - with the exception of some of finn's music from his first album i think.

Also be interesting hearing what hardware/software is being used by the people that said they are good mastering engineers.

i hear a lot of people using ozone and thinking thats well mastered.

In my experience it is very easy to pick faults with any mastered product. No perfect recording or mix or master has ever been made so far, and it would be immodest to think that one might be the first to do so...

I certainly don't mind playing my stuff to anyone with an open mind, but not so they can put it under their hook and scalple, and in any case, the only products I have online are mp3's that have been badly encoded by the software that crunches them for the servers they are on...

Outside my own songs that I have written, I would have to infringe the copyright of the client to showcase my mastering skills, or lack of therein...

Edited May 11, 2008 by Prometheus