Mastering ? Magic or Messing??

PaulBrewer

What's the general vibe on Mastering?

In my experience a skilled mastering engineer can give a track an extra 10% - of course that may be because it doesn't leave me good enough...


Have you used any of the 3 guys I know of in Ireland or do you go abroad?... or even bother with it?

unclebill98

TBH, its only worth investing in if your doing a release. It does help.

dav nagle

Hi Paul I hope you are well,

I am recording an album for a girl at the moment and I have explained to her that I want it mastered when it is finished, full stop. She has no problem with that because at our initial coffee meeting I explained the importance of mastering to her.I think if one is recording an album it should be mastered.

On the other hand, up to this point, I have just been recording 3 songs here and 5 songs there, and so most people wont splash out on getting demos mastered. Bands at least can all chip in. Some musicians in Eire told me that you are better off getting your music mastered in England. Some place in the States will master your music dirt cheap and even offer your first mastered track with them for free, no strings attached.

10% extra sound enhancement for a non released demo is frankly not worth the hassle. Non musicians/engineers are not really in the know when it comes to quality. I think the major producers with the major gear are truly dominating the radio at the moment and most home setups and medium size studios can't compete with the quality gear of major studios.

These days there is the 'WOW' sound and everything else after that is just 'sounds good man' nice recording.

I got my album mastered with an Irish mastering facility, and I am truly much happier that I did get it mastered. I think they did a great job. The process however was long and at times tedious.

May I ask why you are posting this thread? Are you interested to hear what people/engineers do when it comes to mastering? I understand (and do correct me if I am wrong) that you are not a fan of many recordings here in Ireland? Why so?

Peace out brother
D

PaulBrewer

dav nagle wrote: »

Hi Paul I hope you are well,

I am recording an album for a girl at the moment and I have explained to her that I want it mastered when it is finished, full stop. She has no problem with that because at our initial coffee meeting I explained the importance of mastering to her.I think if one is recording an album it should be mastered.

On the other hand, up to this point, I have just been recording 3 songs here and 5 songs there, and so most people wont splash out on getting demos mastered. Bands at least can all chip in. Some musicians in Eire told me that you are better off getting your music mastered in England. Some place in the States will master your music dirt cheap and even offer your first mastered track with them for free, no strings attached.

10% extra sound enhancement for a non released demo is frankly not worth the hassle. Non musicians/engineers are not really in the know when it comes to quality. I think the major producers with the major gear are truly dominating the radio at the moment and most home setups and medium size studios can't compete with the quality gear of major studios.

These days there is the 'WOW' sound and everything else after that is just 'sounds good man' nice recording.

I got my album mastered with an Irish mastering facility, and I am truly much happier that I did get it mastered. I think they did a great job. The process however was long and at times tedious.

May I ask why you are posting this thread? Are you interested to hear what people/engineers do when it comes to mastering? I understand (and do correct me if I am wrong) that you are not a fan of many recordings here in Ireland? Why so?

Peace out brother
D

Dav!

Good to hear you're doing the Lady's album. I'm sure you'll do a great job. The stuff you played me before sounded good.

With regard to demos, if you're making a demo just to put song ideas down for yourself, or your client is, then mastering is a Luxury.

If, however, you're making a Demo to impress to get gigs or , Gawd forbid, impressing a Record Company then it's as important as for a master.

Often gig promoter or Record company guys can give no leeway regarding the quality of the product - it either impresses or doesn't, so that's 'gig' or 'no gig' or even 'deal' or 'no deal'!

There's no need to leave the country for Mastering though obviously there's a huge choice abroad . Like a musician you may like or dislike a Mastering Engineers approach, there's no 'right' or 'wrong' here, it's what you or the producer/artist feel is best. If you like anybody's work trying for a Freebee test track is a good way to work. The advantage of using a local guy is you can attend the cut and build up a relationship.

I think the major producers with the major gear are truly dominating the radio at the moment and most home setups and medium size studios can't compete with the quality gear of major studios.

The above is an argument for, not against, Mastering. Anything you can do to compete is vital.

You describe your album mastering as difficult - I'm sure what you learned this time will help you make it easier next time.

I'm interested in hearing people's ideas on Mastering, their pros and cons.

It's not that I'm not a fan of Irish recording it's just a lot of Irish rock records aren't very good, and are often quite similar. This from some of the 'top' Irish bands. One could argue that that's why nothing happens for a lot of bands..... That 'ok' is good enough locally to make them a 'star but not to take the next step.

That's not to say that there aren't good recordings made here just that a lot aren't, to my mind.

It's because I am a Fan of Irish Recording that I waffle on so!

jtsuited

in my experience, sending demos to labels that are mastered well have infinitely more chance of being listened to for more than 10 seconds.
i have a minimal amount of mastering gear (including the dreaded finalizer pro) but can get what are considered well mastered tracks by many dance labels.
I'm by no means an expert in the area, but people seem to think i do a good job.

that's mainly down to one book though: Bob Katz Mastering Audio - the art and science.

A must read for anyone involved in recording, and absolutely essential to anyone attempting any sort of mastering work.

There are a few core processes involved in mastering like brickwalling, stereo widening, multiband compression, and general eq and a good monitoring setup and good room (or at least one which is accurate and that your ears know well) are essential.

It's still a bit of a dark art. mainly because every track needs different tweakings to get 'that sound'.
The izotope Ozone plugin is amazing if you're willing to put the work in with it and not use the presets.

Hopefully this thread won't turn into a loudness war debate.

I've done a few mastering jobs for people who were having difficulty with their tracks and one of the biggest mistakes people make is not understanding the difference between perceived level and actual level.
Mastering is about raising the perceived level and is often more about using expanders (compression in reverse) than squashing peaks. A good musical ear is essential for this as you really have to figure out where the feel of the record is.
An example being when mastering a straight up house track (think Daft Punk if you're not really familiar with house music) you're pretty much just squashing everything (but letting enough of the kick through at the same time).
Whereas with more techno influenced electronic music, using expanders brings more of an in your face dynamic as the more heavy sounds are slamming and the more subtle stuff pulls back a bit.

I mastered my own 'rock' album a few years ago using a few old neve channel strips and a finalizer pro and found that in order to keep up with other rock tracks in the loudness wars a lot of automation was needed with multibands etc.

Another thing to take note of is that an amateur sounding record will not roll off nicely from 12k onwards. Most inexperienced engineers have a tendency to boost too many highs to give cymbals and vocals sparkle.
But your average pop record since the 1950's will have a frequency roll above 12k caused by the frequency responses of analogue gear.
Our ears don't like anything else so if you're mastering in the box keep a spectral analysis plugin handy and make sure your slope above 12k is there.

There's a great chapter about this particular practice in the bob katz book.

dav nagle

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Dav!

Good to hear you're doing the Lady's album. I'm sure you'll do a great job. The stuff you played me before sounded good.

: Thanks a mill Paul your the beez the neez..

---

With regard to demos, if you're making a demo just to put song ideas down for yourself, or your client is, then mastering is a Luxury.

: Could you elaborate on that one a bit please, I would like a bit more of your insight into that one.

---

If, however, you're making a Demo to impress to get gigs or , Gawd forbid, impressing a Record Company then it's as important as for a master.

I HAVE PM'D YOU ON THIS ONE.



Often gig promoter or Record company guys can give no leeway regarding the quality of the product - it either impresses or doesn't, so that's 'gig' or 'no gig' or even 'deal' or 'no deal'!

I take your point but one needs a producer to help shoe one's talents.

---

There's no need to leave the country for Mastering though obviously there's a huge choice abroad . Like a musician you may like or dislike a Mastering Engineers approach, there's no 'right' or 'wrong' here, it's what you or the producer/artist feel is best. If you like anybody's work trying for a Freebee test track is a good way to work. The advantage of using a local guy is you can attend the cut and build up a relationship.

---

: Very true, Studio Rat told me he would never miss a mastering session and now I see his point.

---

The above is an argument for, not against, Mastering. Anything you can do to compete is vital.

You describe your album mastering as difficult - I'm sure what you learned this time will help you make it easier next time.

---

: I learnt an awful lot, still have a few scars on my bottom !!


I'm interested in hearing people's ideas on Mastering, their pros and cons.

It's not that I'm not a fan of Irish recording it's just a lot of Irish rock records aren't very good, and are often quite similar. This from some of the 'top' Irish bands. One could argue that that's why nothing happens for a lot of bands..... That 'ok' is good enough locally to make them a 'star but not to take the next step.

That's not to say that there aren't good recordings made here just that a lot aren't, to my mind.


It's because I am a Fan of Irish Recording that I waffle on so!

---

I see, I understand your point of view on Irish recording. Nice one.

PaulBrewer

Dav, My point is if you're making a recording to just put down a song for reference, just to remember the tune for example , there's no real point in mastering - Everything else may benefit from Mastering.

dav nagle

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Dav, My point is if you're making a recording to just put down a song for reference, just to remember the tune for example , there's no real point in mastering - Everything else may benefit from Mastering.

I hear you papa smurf !! All of my own recordings are mainly to remember the tune they are not for anything else. From now on all my clients will get there stuff mastered because I think it does make a serious difference. The mastering engineer can balance everything nicely and do tons of stuff for that pro sound. I still say that the small studios cant compete. Yes they can try but sure you are always saying it yourself 'good gear last you for life and rarely lets you down'.

PaulBrewer

dav nagle wrote: »

I hear you papa smurf !! All of my own recordings are mainly to remember the tune they are not for anything else. From now on all my clients will get there stuff mastered because I think it does make a serious difference. The mastering engineer can balance everything nicely and do tons of stuff for that pro sound. I still say that the small studios cant compete. Yes they can try but sure you are always saying it yourself 'good gear last you for life and rarely lets you down'.

You should aim to make the recording leaving you as good as possible - think if it HAD to be released unmastered would it be ok.

THEN let the mastering bucko make it better if he can....

dav nagle

PaulBrewer wrote: »

You should aim to make the recording leaving you as good as possible - think if it HAD to be released unmastered would it be ok.

THEN let the mastering bucko make it better if he can....

Ok well without Hi jacking this thread what exactly is the check (top ten) list in order to make sure a recording is up to standard?


Ok I will post a new thread

PaulBrewer

dav nagle wrote: »

Ok well without Hi jacking this thread what exactly is the check (top ten) list in order to make sure a recording is up to standard?

That's your decision!

TelePaul

Is mastering only mastering if it is done by a professional mastering house in a different environment and with different equipment to the recording studio? It seems some studios include basic mastering in the price...whether that just means slapping a master limiter on the finished track, I don't know.

I'm all for the faux-mastering approach for my sketches: Kjaerhus Audios free classic compressor and classic master limiter, a bit of Glaceverb and Electri-Qs 'decent master' preset.

dav nagle

TelePaul wrote: »

Is mastering only mastering if it is done by a professional mastering house in a different environment and with different equipment to the recording studio? It seems some studios include basic mastering in the price...whether that just means slapping a master limiter on the finished track, I don't know.

I'm all for the faux-mastering approach for my sketches: Kjaerhus Audios free classic compressor and classic master limiter, a bit of Glaceverb and Electri-Qs 'decent master' preset.

With the Waves Diamond plug-ins one can master but sonically do most engineers have a clue what to do? No. I could give someone a guess master! As in I could make it louder and that and maybe EQ the track, but getting the job done right in professional mastering studio is relatively cheap these days. Do most mid end studios have mastering equipment? Do they have years of experience? No.

PaulBrewer

TelePaul wrote: »

Is mastering only mastering if it is done by a professional mastering house in a different environment and with different equipment to the recording studio? It seems some studios include basic mastering in the price...whether that just means slapping a master limiter on the finished track, I don't know.

I'm all for the faux-mastering approach for my sketches: Kjaerhus Audios free classic compressor and classic master limiter, a bit of Glaceverb and Electri-Qs 'decent master' preset.

Interesting point TP. My question is in relation to Pro Lads ok.

Indeed we've all slapped a limiter on a track with a bit of top and bottom!

I was interested in how important you guys think mastering is -

The last project I've completed is by Glen Baker and he has some MP3s
up at http://www.myspace.com/glenbaker

This was professionally mastered..

I think mastering makes my work sound better , that's it's value and the argument for using it.

coccla

I don't profess to be an expert here, far from it. But doesn't mastering reduce the dynamic range, causing the overall sound to have a higher gain output. What I understand is that all EQ, gating and other effects can be perfected in the mixing stage, so compression is the only other main process that needs to be affected. Also there is only a few great master engineers, and if you get a bad one he/she may wreck all your good work. I ain't an expert on this so if I am way off the mark, forgive me. But what is the extra 10% that the mastering gives your track??

dav nagle

coccla wrote: »

I don't profess to be an expert here, far from it. But doesn't mastering reduce the dynamic range, causing the overall sound to have a higher gain output. What I understand is that all EQ, gating and other effects can be perfected in the mixing stage, so compression is the only other main process that needs to be affected. Also there is only a few great master engineers, and if you get a bad one he/she may wreck all your good work. I ain't an expert on this so if I am way off the mark, forgive me. But what is the extra 10% that the mastering gives your track??

Hi Coccla,

A good mastering engineer may have a better ear than a young sound engineer. For example one might add too much bass or too little bass for that matter or the bass might not be consistent throughout an album. Another good example is the mastering engineer can EQ your tracks at 16 bit MP3 and all the various bit rates so you have the option depending what medium you require. If you are recording your first album a good mastering engineer will help you with your first few important steps and if he believes you need to remix something, he will ask you to do so. To have a second ear who works mastering hits is invaluable. The overall product will have a quality and you most likely will have a greater confidence.

Peace out
D

coccla

Thanks paul, glad you put up the thread.

wild_eyed

its that extra ten percent that mastering provides that can make a song stand out on radio...... its important for releases. not just full albums but single or ep releases....

there isnt much point in mastering a demo unless of course you plan on releasing the demo. you can master to specific mediums... lp, cd, even low bitrate mediums such as mp3.

i've been mastering stuff for a few years now.. just on the side and people have been happy with my results if your interested in not spending a fortune.

teamdresch

The last two projects of mine that got mastered were by Golden and West Side.
Both very different approaches - the first a subtle, dynamic job on some synthy indie pop and the latter a fairly slammed job on a rock band.

Both were good jobs that suited the music pretty well (although the rock one could have been slightly less squished and low-mid-cut).

They both had one thing in common though - the fresh, experienced ears and proper listening environment meant that they caught some low end issues that I missed and were able to tie the songs and album together as a whole.

I think going with an experienced professional will make the end result better, and hopefully your whole m.o. as an engineer should be to help the music sound as good as possible, wether by degrees or big leaps.

To my mind, going with someone in the states is insanely good value for money at the minute, and you get a really good bang for your eurobuck.

Neurojazz

it's also not just about 10% improvement of the overall sound... you could also take into account the range of devices the music gets played on, mono checks, dynamic range etc...

even though my gear is pretty new, i've been behind desks since seck 16:8:2 from about 16 years ago and given the foundation of most the skills i still use today. It wasn't until i read up on the bob katz mastering techniques that i realised that i had already been told most the real stuff i needed by people around me in the early years.

Mastering now is just some very subtle touches - probably less than 10% to be honest - more like 2%

I've shelled out over 1000 euros on the tc MD3 amoung other units and the changes they make are very, very subtle but impressive - it all adds up when you are given something quality to work with! - i would say that it's now feasible to build a mastering suite for a reasonable budget of around 15k and have most the tools needed for tweaking.

I'm going to be running a competition for some free mastering soon - i'll keep you all posted and let the boards guys know first before all the other forums.

If in the meantime anyone wants to throw something my way i have a bit of spare time if you want to see what my notorius dog like ears can do

dav nagle

Neurojazz wrote: »

it's also not just about 10% improvement of the overall sound... you could also take into account the range of devices the music gets played on, mono checks, dynamic range etc...

even though my gear is pretty new, i've been behind desks since seck 16:8:2 from about 16 years ago and given the foundation of most the skills i still use today. It wasn't until i read up on the bob katz mastering techniques that i realised that i had already been told most the real stuff i needed by people around me in the early years.

Mastering now is just some very subtle touches - probably less than 10% to be honest - more like 2%

I've shelled out over 1000 euros on the tc MD3 amoung other units and the changes they make are very, very subtle but impressive - it all adds up when you are given something quality to work with! - i would say that it's now feasible to build a mastering suite for a reasonable budget of around 15k and have most the tools needed for tweaking.

I'm going to be running a competition for some free mastering soon - i'll keep you all posted and let the boards guys know first before all the other forums.

If in the meantime anyone wants to throw something my way i have a bit of spare time if you want to see what my notorius dog like ears can do

I would like to send you a track if you want to give it a free master? That would be shweeeeeetyyyyyppppiiieeeeeebumbum!

Neurojazz

For the benefit of analysis by other boards members i think i could do a section of peoples music so that you can hear the A / B - as a trade off you'd get the whole article mastered.

You'd have to give me permission to post a 2 min section on the boards (it would be 1min normal, 2nd half mastered bypass in and out etc... for all to see/criticise/comment...

If your'e ok with this, then maybe include the edit note (your thoughts on the progress via mp3 i send back to you for approval) and then can see how i remedy different situations - i'd be up for a transparent, detailed and informative series of posts for anyone wanting to do this.

dav nagle

Neurojazz wrote: »

For the benefit of analysis by other boards members i think i could do a section of peoples music so that you can hear the A / B - as a trade off you'd get the whole article mastered.

You'd have to give me permission to post a 2 min section on the boards (it would be 1min normal, 2nd half mastered bypass in and out etc... for all to see/criticise/comment...

If your'e ok with this, then maybe include the edit note (your thoughts on the progress via mp3 i send back to you for approval) and then can see how i remedy different situations - i'd be up for a transparent, detailed and informative series of posts for anyone wanting to do this.

Fair enough that sounds very interesting, nice idea.

seannash

Neurojazz wrote: »

it's also not just about 10% improvement of the overall sound... you could also take into account the range of devices the music gets played on, mono checks, dynamic range etc...

even though my gear is pretty new, i've been behind desks since seck 16:8:2 from about 16 years ago and given the foundation of most the skills i still use today. It wasn't until i read up on the bob katz mastering techniques that i realised that i had already been told most the real stuff i needed by people around me in the early years.

Mastering now is just some very subtle touches - probably less than 10% to be honest - more like 2%

I've shelled out over 1000 euros on the tc MD3 amoung other units and the changes they make are very, very subtle but impressive - it all adds up when you are given something quality to work with! - i would say that it's now feasible to build a mastering suite for a reasonable budget of around 15k and have most the tools needed for tweaking.

I'm going to be running a competition for some free mastering soon - i'll keep you all posted and let the boards guys know first before all the other forums.

If in the meantime anyone wants to throw something my way i have a bit of spare time if you want to see what my notorius dog like ears can do

have you enough spare time to do mine man

henessjon

10% ? maybe maybe not

well lots of people I speak to dont rate mastering - admittedly these are all self home project studios :-)


it seems that mastering = get the thing to play as loud as possible without peaking out...


I know theres a lot of other stuff thats important done there as well !


sure if you got a radio hit or manage to get on a radio playlist master it to death.


trust your ears..


yeah neuro jazz would be up for that mastering lesson too a before and after cool

Neurojazz

Ok, for the people that are interested in this....

Please can you supply the following!

Using 'yousendit' or some sort of fileshare link, a 48k 32bit float format file.

That's the best option! - if not, please let me know what the best quality you can send to me is

I'll do a write up for each part of the process i usually go through... if your'e feeling brave then post the link in the thread (or start a new thread titled accordingly - like... 'Mike's master test').

I can deal with pretty much any style - have roots in most areas in music

dav nagle

Neurojazz wrote: »

Ok, for the people that are interested in this....

Please can you supply the following!

Using 'yousendit' or some sort of fileshare link, a 48k 32bit float format file.

That's the best option! - if not, please let me know what the best quality you can send to me is

I'll do a write up for each part of the process i usually go through... if your'e feeling brave then post the link in the thread (or start a new thread titled accordingly - like... 'Mike's master test').

I can deal with pretty much any style - have roots in most areas in music

Ok Ill put that together now, cheers

henessjon

ok where will I send the file your email address can you pm me

booooonzo

Can other people have a go at mastering these tracks?
I used to do a good bit myself, but mainly projects that I was close to, so would like to see how another project would come out in comparisson to other peoples attempts.

PaulBrewer

Why not go to a Mastering Engineer? Someone who does it for a living -

There are 2 great guys in Ireland

Fergal Davis and Richard Dowling

http://www.myspace.com/wavmastering

http://www.myspace.com/suitestudio

RealEstateKing

I think mastering may be even more important nowadays than it used to be.

One reason for this is that, with so many people recording in less-than-perfect-environments, and mixing in untreated rooms - it becomes even more vital that the mix can be heard in a proper, acoustically treated room on neutral monitors (If you think you can do that in your bedroom, you're wrong).

Most musicians, are understandably , far more interested in the artistic side of sound engineering/mixing - I.e. making a beautiful big shiny sound picture, than they are in the boringly nuts-and-bolts side - ie. Will it actually sound as good on everybody's system as I think it does on mine? I prefer to get somebody else to worry about this, cause it's really about as far from art/creativity as you can get.

Personally I prefer to mix myself as best I can - simply cause I cant afford to get somebody else to do it, and I enjoy it - and then on release get a mastering engineer to do a pass on it - if Ive overcooked the bass a little he can tone it down or whatever.

Furthermore: If you're trying to get played on radio in a commercial way, it is an absolute neccessity nowadays: Everything is slammed to hell in mastering, and If your track isnt it'll sound lifeless in comparison: I hate this loudess war, but it is the way things are. Ive showed mixes of mine to non-musician friends and they are like "Em it's alright", when I think it's perfect. And I realise that they are so used to listening to records that are 110% LOUD AND SHINY that mine sounds weak to their jaded ears.

Its a bit like being a chef in a country where people put hot chilli sauce on everything.

PaulBrewer

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I think mastering may be even more important nowadays than it used to be.

One reason for this is that, with so many people recording in less-than-perfect-environments, and mixing in untreated rooms - it becomes even more vital that the mix can be heard in a proper, acoustically treated room on neutral monitors (If you think you can do that in your bedroom, you're wrong).

Most musicians, are understandably , far more interested in the artistic side of sound engineering/mixing - I.e. making a beautiful big shiny sound picture, than they are in the boringly nuts-and-bolts side - ie. Will it actually sound as good on everybody's system as I think it does on mine? I prefer to get somebody else to worry about this, cause it's really about as far from art/creativity as you can get.

Personally I prefer to mix myself as best I can - simply cause I cant afford to get somebody else to do it, and I enjoy it - and then on release get a mastering engineer to do a pass on it - if Ive overcooked the bass a little he can tone it down or whatever.

Furthermore: If you're trying to get played on radio in a commercial way, it is an absolute neccessity nowadays: Everything is slammed to hell in mastering, and If your track isnt it'll sound lifeless in comparison: I hate this loudess war, but it is the way things are. Ive showed mixes of mine to non-musician friends and they are like "Em it's alright", when I think it's perfect. And I realise that they are so used to listening to records that are 110% LOUD AND SHINY that mine sounds weak to their jaded ears.

Its a bit like being a chef in a country where people put hot chilli sauce on everything.

Very well put - it's an observation all the Mastering Engineers I've spoken to both here and the UK have made.

The mastering engineer used be the one who'd buff the bonnet before delivery but now has to go around and rub out scratches and even bang out the odd dent.

Your LOUD AND SHINY point is also real - if you want to be heard you need to be as good as your 'competition' , same as anything else in life really.

Neurojazz

Mastering is only about loudness if you buy into that - it's much deeper than just 110% - there is a set of guide line rms values per genre that limit the 'loudness/fatigue' issue that people seem to hit first when they get involved in mastering... that's just 1% of the mastering process... (if the client even wants it!)

There is also another minor issue to contend with... lets say the artist gets the pre-master sent back because they themselves have over compressed or blown the mix - this means 'back to the studio' far down the line from the mastering process (which isn't expensive anymore).

The mastering is best to liase with the pre-mix engineer so that you get the best results - imagine trying to go back to a mix after months of time....

madtheory

100% agreed Neurojazz!

Sometimes the mastering engineer doesn't do anything, just signs of on an excellent mix. Most of the Abbey Road mastering engineers apparently never do any limiting, just an occasional application of compression.

The best mastering engineers have the following:
1. Great, musical ears.
2. A properly treated room with lovely speakers.
The rest (i.e. plugins etc.) is gravy.

It's possible to master with sub optimal room and speakers, but it's hard work and takes more time.

With most clients mixing in the box, a lot of the time the best thing, as Neurojazz implies, is to check the mix in the mastering studio, then do a recall to tweak any issues.

I don't understand the limiting thing. You go to all that trouble to write a dynamic piece of music, then carefully mix it, only to totally remove all dynamics at mastering! I've had clients who actually asked me to distort the material to make it louder. We discussed it, but in the end, the customer is always right.

Neurojazz

The limiting thing is to stop overloads on consumer devices...

Here's the science bit in laymans terms....

You MUST NOT have like 3 digital overs (3 peaks in a row) at 0db - this will make consumer stereos burst into flames and bring planes falling from the sky ;P - (joke) - but seriously, limiting stops consumer crappy DACs from overloading.

The DAC looks at the first over and goes 'i can handle this!' and ignores... sees the second one and thinks 'feck! - i must extrapolate this [probably] as there maybe a peak above 0db' - see the third and thinks 'feck! - wtfomg canna handle it *pop*click*fizz*'

Untreated rooms do = nightmare, but i have the time to get around all that jazz... i have many visual tools also to enable monitoring - also, the plugins now enable me to make a certain boards members guitar sound like 3000 euros more than it cost in a room that has been treated with delux goose down walls

PaulBrewer

I would advise looking at mastering as the extra cherry on top. i.e. put all your energy into getting as great a mix as possible before it's mastered.

The idea that a Mastering engineer can 'save' a mix is just plain wrong - and it's unfair to them to expect them to.

Neurojazz

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The idea that a Mastering engineer can 'save' a mix is just plain wrong - and it's unfair to them to expect them to.

Yep, that is 'audio restoration' which is a different kettle of fish....

studiorat

I spent Friday afternoon A/B'ing a mastered album against the original mixes.
The master was a bit duller so the voice suffered in terms of "air", but the acoustic guitars sounded less prickly. So I sent the artist back to the mastering engineer to have another look, he didn't seem to have a problem with that. (some guy in the states). Funnily enough the mastered version was quieter than the reference copies but it did sound smoother. I felt the perspective from track to track was better though. All in all it was a nice gentle enhancement job!!!

Most good mastering engineers seem to try and enhance the track musically as opposed to just technically.
I've had some improvements and I've had some disasters.

Personally I don't think mastering is as important as it used to be. Vinyl mastering was to make sure the master was transfered properly in terms of getting the bass to cut as well as possible and still keep a decent level on the finished record.

Mastering for me should just be arranging of the levels of each track and the gaps between them. And maybe a bit of EQ and a run through an SM box. My aim would be to try and keep each song sounding similar so the listener doesn't need to adjust anything when listening to the whole album. Basically so a loud song doesn't sound lower than a quiet song!
It's gonna get blitzed on FM radio anyway.

teamdresch

And a relatively quiet master will sound much better on the radio than a pancaked one.

booooonzo

To me mastering is about tone ,translation and in the case of an album consistency.
A lot of bedroom mixes will have certian frequencies that stick out and need taming and others that are nearly gone.
This is why its good practice to get to know your Mastering Engineer and stick with him if he is good. Over time he will(should) give you advise on what he is recurringly hearing on your tracks and advise you on fixing your room/speakers/mixing methods etc..

So not only does he improve your final mix he improves your mixing in the long run, hopefully!

I really dont buy into the hyper limited mastering, thats what a volume knob is for.
But it also depends a lot on the source material, It is actually part of some genres 'Sound'.

Trev M

booooonzo wrote: »

I really dont buy into the hyper limited mastering, thats what a volume knob is for.
.

Amen - Ive had a couple of things mastered with Fergal Davis, to his credit he didnt smash the bejaysus out of the stuff, although one of the bands I did wanted it as loud as possible and he obliged, they complained so I ran IZOtope over the original mixes and thats what they went with... There in lies the thing I think, horses for courses.

Most regular joes hear loud and loud is good, its a pity cause sometimes turning something up with a volume nob is all thats required but most artists/ bands dont seem to get that IMO ....subsequently most bands record a demo with 3 songs, spending 2 hours per song and some guy gets it, smashes the **** out of it, and the world has one more demo thats completely unlistenable. Anyway good thread.

PaulBrewer

Trev M wrote: »

....subsequently most bands record a demo with 3 songs, spending 2 hours per song and some guy gets it, smashes the **** out of it, and the world has one more demo thats completely unlistenable. Anyway good thread.

And they wonder why no one like them, will buy them or will play them on the Radio ....

PaulBrewer

Mastering Engineers aren't Panel Beaters!

Trev M

True enough , that said a lot of commercial radio stuff is horrendous too....Have ya heard the George Michael cover on the radio by some band called Gospel / Gossip ? ....its for some BBC Radio 1 cover version concept album

PaulBrewer

Trev M wrote: »

True enough , that said a lot of commercial radio stuff is horrendous too....Have ya heard the George Michael cover on the radio by some band called Gospel / Gossip ? ....its for some BBC Radio 1 cover version concept album

The Gossip ? Beth Ditto's band, she's some chanter/foghorn though!

In fairness we all do manky work occasionally, I know I do!

The important thing to my mind is to have the desire to do better and the confidence to know you will ...... and the hard bit, the Kop On to learn and accept how things are , if only as a starting point to changing them.

Trev M

Thats the track , the voice is actually good IMO .... its that wierd guitar in the mix that really stood out...of course it only my opinion.

couldnt agree more about the hard bit.... it took me a while to get over the trauma of spending months on something and having it ripped apart technically . It makes it all the nicer when ya hear something ya did being used for something cool or on the radio etc.

As for doing some horror shows and mankathons Ive done some pretty depressing stuff when i think about it

booooonzo

The Gossip - careless whisper http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybZzx4xs4JU
Now im listening on 5euro earphones but sounds like her vocal compressor is set all wrong. It really jumps out all over the place, cut the ears off you but as Paul said she is some foghorn, could be a nightmare to record/mix.

PaulBrewer

Trev M wrote: »

As for doing some horror shows and mankathons Ive done some pretty depressing stuff when i think about it

And will again, no doubt! I know I will!

Once you know you're doing Shizit work you can move on.... it's like finally releasing you're an Alcoholic , only then can you start to do something about it.

dav nagle

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The Gossip ? Beth Ditto's band, she's some chanter/foghorn though!

In fairness we all do manky work occasionally, I know I do!

The important thing to my mind is to have the desire to do better and the confidence to know you will ...... and the hard bit, the Kop On to learn and accept how things are , if only as a starting point to changing them.

Its true, I want to be great but so far to go

Trev M

PaulBrewer wrote: »

it's like finally releasing you're an Alcoholic , only then can you start to do something about it.

Heh heh well one step at a time

Anyway on topic Fergal does good work from my experience so would agree with the previous recommendation if anyone is looking for stuff... alternatively izotope is handy for smashin up those demos :rolleyes:

studiorat

I dunno but I reckon there's a few named mastering guys there who are using the mastering/black art thing as a sales pitch. You know, you do it at home but you really need a pro mastering engineer spiel. Obviously a project needs mastering but I feel there's too much emphisis on the whole mastering thing.