mastering/loudness

[Guest Adam]

The secret? Come over to my studio and put your mix through my Manley Variable Mu and Manley Massive Passive.

 

You seriously have them?

[acidphakist]

The secret? Come over to my studio and put your mix through my Manley Variable Mu and Manley Massive Passive.

 

You seriously have them?

 

Yes.

[hardcode]

Apologies, I was a bit caustic with my reply there - I was trying to get at what Benedict Cumberbatch put quite succinctly in his post up there ^^ . To me getting the sound of the track nicely mixed via mastering is just as important as getting the rest of the track right, as I see it it's like a carpenter (erm, not that I have much experience carpentering) who makes a chair but can't be arsed to sand it down to finish it off properly. I mean, yeah I've used Chris Leary's mastering services a couple of times, not because I couldn't be bothered to make the track sound decent in the first place, just that I knew he would be able to add a distinctive finesse to the final result. So I feel that it's a useful skill to learn particularly in the the electronic music scene where production values are so critically assessed.

 

 

Why does it seem that people judge a track these days almost more on how its been mastered than how it actually sounds? I constantly hear people getting props for how well their tracks sound master-wise but fall short when it comes to actual musical content. Is the mastering industry the downfall of electronic music, as it is shifting the focus away from the actual music?

 

it reminds me of kids these days who give more props to filmers and editors of skate footage than the actual skaters themselves

[bossman]

Why does it seem that people judge a track these days almost more on how its been mastered than how it actually sounds?

 

 

because mastering affects how it actually sounds? bedroom producers are wising up & mixing down wit their wits. it is an art. art of noise.

[Guest sirch]

Why does it seem that people judge a track these days almost more on how its been mastered than how it actually sounds? I constantly hear people getting props for how well their tracks sound master-wise but fall short when it comes to actual musical content. Is the mastering industry the downfall of electronic music, as it is shifting the focus away from the actual music?

 

it reminds me of kids these days who give more props to filmers and editors of skate footage than the actual skaters themselves

 

because they're dicks. simple as. :) but God bless them. we need our dicks! they help to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

[Guest Blanket Fort Collapse]

I really really think that is an extreme exaggeration. No one is going fuck the new Boards Of Canada this new Seal record is mastered so well. I think you are missing the scenario bigfat. Mastering is a delicate finalization on music but people go more yeah this record was meticulously produced very very well wow I gotta respect that and yeah they didn't fuck up the mastering. It is 99.99% more often that peeps will be vocal that the mastering fucked up a great record not the other way around.

[acidphakist]

Mastering RUINED Rihanna's hit single, "Only Girl".

[sneaksta303]

lol that shit ruined itself dude

[acidphakist]

lol that shit ruined itself dude

 

Thanks for not calling me out on how not to use those units for 'mastering', man!

[sneaksta303]

That's not my job buddy.

[Guest Blanket Fort Collapse]

Waves Complete VST RTAS TDM v7.1.1.6-AiR

 

just came out... just sayin

[ryancolecreate]

yeah well thats why i was asking about one that if not pass banding automatically it could present the results of its analyzation to the user and give choices, but then again that wouldnt be that automated and i think you can just do that manually with not much extra steps,

 

even better would be one that pass banded dynamically in real time based on the input signal, kind of like a dynamic compressor i guess? does such a thiin exist?

 

yes!

 

http://www.sonalksis.com/dq1.htm

 

This is a dynamic EG. Works like a compressor, but the result is that it adjusts the EQ of a certain band instead of the level. (I guess it's a bit different?)

 

Is that what you're looking for?

[ryancolecreate]

Also I just found this app called Smaart from lemonshare. It's a super detailed audio analysis program. Gonna run some tracks through it and see what I can find out about what frequency ranges are over-populated ect. Looks promising.

[hardcode]

yeah well thats why i was asking about one that if not pass banding automatically it could present the results of its analyzation to the user and give choices, but then again that wouldnt be that automated and i think you can just do that manually with not much extra steps,

 

even better would be one that pass banded dynamically in real time based on the input signal, kind of like a dynamic compressor i guess? does such a thiin exist?

 

yes!

 

http://www.sonalksis.com/dq1.htm

 

This is a dynamic EG. Works like a compressor, but the result is that it adjusts the EQ of a certain band instead of the level. (I guess it's a bit different?)

 

Is that what you're looking for?

 

Sounds promising,

[TechDiff]

I def agree that's it's not worth trying to compete in the loudness war too much. But at the same time, I know how disheartening it can be to play after someone who's done an awesome job mastering. They sound ten times louder than you etc etc.

 

Really the first part is the context of your track, if you're intending it for home listening, or for playing in a club. if it's for club use, then it's really quite important to be able to get it up to a level that compares with other releases. Not to mention that some people simply won't spin it if it's too quiet. if its more intended as a listening piece of music, then maintaining a wide dynamic range is a lot more important. Clark is actually a great example, his over compressed sound is a bit tiring on listening, but the times Ive seen him play, it's been absolutely incredible.

 

Definitely worth checking it through a decent freq analysis tool, to see what's going on in the real low end. some people say you should just strip everything below 30 hz, which Im not convinced is correct, but its nearly always the case that the low end can be tamed a bit. that said, this is where multiband stuff can be handy too. same with the super high stuff, adds a dimension of air to the sound but can induce a lot of ear fatigue too.

 

absolute first and most important thing in mixing is to have a quality monitoring setup, and to know and trust it. Really important to really understand how things sound through the speakers you're mixing with, otherwise you don't stand much of a chance. same with the room you're mixing in, it's very important to understand what additional character your environment is adding, and know how to compensate for it.

 

absolutely avoid anything on your master channel, completely unnecessary. especially things like EQ and so forth. try to take care of as much compression and limiting as possible before you get to that stage. either work per track, or group things together. You'd be amazed at how much you can improve your mixes through correct grouping of tracks.

 

another thing that a lot of people seem to ignore for some reason is checking for peaking. Follow every sound from source to output to make sure that absolutely nothing is red lining. very easy to distort the input of your master channel and cause yourself all manner of headaches.

 

also, be realistic about what you're aiming for. the point is that a lot of released music is mastered in very nice, very accurate studios with very nice gear. even something simple like a great compressor makes such a huge difference. I love the waves plugs, they come really in handy, but in a final mix/master situation they fall very short of a solid valve comp. really incredible how much you can get out of such kit before you encounter really noticeable side effects. then when you include a great desk, EQs etc, it becomes more n more understandable how such volume is achieved.

 

I guess, just be patient and methodical with EQing each part, make sure nothings going on that doesn't need to be, and check for clashing frequencies. group things together logically, check for any kinda red lining, and IF NEEDED apply subtle Eq and compression here. ensure you have no distortion into your master channel from your groups.

 

main thing, don't confuse mixing with mastering. really you want the track to be sounding good with nothing on your master channel, and if done properly will already be at a good volume. This is really really important because if you release this music you'll need it in unmastered version. if you've been relying on master compression and limiting to make it sound good then it's almost certain that an unmastered file is gonna sound like pap.

 

what Im trying to say, don't concern yourself too much with being able to master your tracks well, unless you intend to become a mastering engineer. Learn to mix things correctly first, likely scenario is that self mastered efforts will only be for your own benefit since if the music gets released it will be mastered by a pro. instead concentrate on being able to present something unmastered that actually requires very little further work to sound good. means that when you do plan to play the tracks out, you won't have to do much to prep them, and if you go to release them you make the mastering engineers life a lot easier and will undoubtedly finish up with something that sounds a million times better.

[Guest Babaluma]

You make some very interesting points, many with which I agree, many with which I don't.

 

I really don't agree with your equating an awesome mastering job with making something sound ten times louder. This idea that mastering in in some away about making things louder, or "competitive", is completely false, and is only something that seems to have been bandied about in recent years. The traditional job of the mastering engineer was to: a) make a finished mix sound even better, either by removing problem sounds or frequencies, or processing the entire mix to sound better, b) making the mix translate well to as many different systems as possible, and c) taking the original high quality format and converting it into something ready for mass replication and distribution.

 

I also disagree very strongly that club based music needs to be compressed or limited MORE than music designed for home listening. The benefit of huge high quality PA systems is the increased dynamic range possible with something like a 10K system. Overly limited music tends to sound even more harsh and nasty on a good PA, whereas music that retains its dynamic range just sounds even better. If tracks are at very different levels, then it's the DJ's job to use the output gain controls on the DJ mixer to level match the tracks. I'd say compression and limiting were more important in high noise environments such as a regular home, or car environment.

 

The reliance on VISUAL tools to judge audio quality is also something I've seen creeping in more and more since everyone and his pet dog got a DAW. What happened to relying on our ears? Of course I sometimes use audio analysis tools in my mastering, such as the Sonoris Meter and Voxengo SPAN, but they are an adjunct to what my ears are telling me, and are secondary in that sense.

 

I sometimes use a HPF at 10Hz, sometimes at 23Hz or 33Hz, and sometimes not at all, but in each case I am A/B-ing the result, listening carefully, and I make my final decision based upon WHAT MY EARS TELL ME.

 

I totally agree with you regarding monitoring, and knowing your monitors and room. I've been using the same monitors in the same position in the same room for around 9 years now. The quality of your monitors, room treatment, and the knowledge gained by extensive listening to many kinds of music on the same system gives the experience necessary to "make the call" as to when something sounds right or wrong.

 

I completely disagree that, if you are a producer/mix engineer etc., you should NEVER put anything on your master channel. Expert mixers have been using EQ and compression on the two-buss since the '50's and before... The problem comes with inexperience, and people in far from ideal acoustic situations trying to create a quick fix to a problem that should have been sorted in the mix. I'd recommend NOT putting anything on the master channel (especially any form of Brick Wall Limiting), until you are 100% satisfied with the sound of your mix. Then it may well not need any.

 

Agreed about checking for digital peaking. There is absolutely no need to EVER hit 0dBfs in this age of 24 bit digital audio. A good rule of thumb is to try to ensure that the RMS AVERAGE level of each individual track in the mix is around -18dBfs (with no digital overs), as this is usually closest to the old analogue 0dB VU reference standard. This will allow a professional mastering engineer to integrate your mix SEAMLESSLY with his or her high end analogue outboard equipment, without having to raise or lower the the level beforehand. Digital doesn't progressively get warmer and phatter as we crank up the level, like analogue tape did, it distorts HEAVILY, and so we should be using those bits for HEADROOM not LOUDNESS!!! And as you say, check for digital overs after every plugin in the chain! If it goes over, pull down the input volume of the preceding gain stage!

 

The myth of valves has been overstated. There are good valves, and bad valves, good valve designs and bad valve designs, good solid state designs, and terrible ones, great digital processors and converters, and awful ones etc. What it comes down to at the end of the day, as I keep stressing, is DOES IT SOUND GOOD?

 

Agree about EQ and clashing frequencies. Trying to carve out a space in the mix for each instrument is a great idea for starters, and that should be easily achievable without resorting to such esoteric processors such as dynamic EQs and multi-band compressors.

 

Don't confuse mixing with mastering - completely agree! Wear different hats at different times! By all means record, engineer and master your own music (that's how I got started), but don't try to do it all in one session! If you music will be professionally mastered, it's best to leave all the two-bus processing to the mastering engineer, unless you have a lot of experience. If it won't be professionally mastered, then by all means have a go yourself, but give yourself a longish break between mixing and mastering to give your ears and brain a rest, and a bit more objectivity.

 

Totally agree, get the master mix sounding as great as you can BEFORE adding any further two bus processing.

 

"Learn to mix things correctly first, likely scenario is that self mastered efforts will only be for your own benefit since if the music gets released it will be mastered by a pro. instead concentrate on being able to present something unmastered that actually requires very little further work to sound good. means that when you do plan to play the tracks out, you won't have to do much to prep them, and if you go to release them you make the mastering engineers life a lot easier and will undoubtedly finish up with something that sounds a million times better."

 

Totally agree!

 

All the best,

 

Gregg

[ryancolecreate]

wow great post :)

 

BTW I'm put a new track I've been working on up in the Crit section. I'm in the mastering/fine mixing phase now, so I'd love some feedback on what could be better ect. I haven't posted a track here in ages... :)

 

Also bad crit is just as welcome. I'm curious what you guys think in general.

 

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/62573-give-me-mastering-mixing-feedback/

[impakt]

At first I hated Clark's massive sound, but it grew on me and I understand and like the loudness in it. There's creative room for both loud and quiet mixes. I love using loudness/compression to bring background noise to the top, really adds more texture to the sound sometimes. I also love mixing quiet for the room in the mix, it's awesome to use the dynamic range for what it's worth sometimes. I change it around depending on what I'm making.

[acidphakist]

At first I hated Clark's massive sound, but it grew on me and I understand and like the loudness in it. There's creative room for both loud and quiet mixes. I love using loudness/compression to bring background noise to the top, really adds more texture to the sound sometimes. I also love mixing quiet for the room in the mix, it's awesome to use the dynamic range for what it's worth sometimes. I change it around depending on what I'm making.

 

+1 for compressing an acoustic drum kit to enhance and pump the room reverb.

[hardcode]

thanks a lot techdiff and babaluma for the detailed posts, very informative. the last time i mastered one of my own tracks i did it "stem style" and bounced groupings of tracks into separate .wav files and then created a new project with those .wav files and did post processing there. i guess that is kind of simioar to just grouping them in the original project, problem is i shy away from adding tracks if i dont need to, will adding group tracks and changing around the audio routing increase cpu? when i finally finish this track im working on ill probably do the same but try and focus more on clashing freqs and "thinning down" tracks.

 

i'm not expecting to get professional desk-level mastering, but I am aiming to get the most out of what i have (a laptop, software and headphones from walmart )

 

taking me forever to finish this track because it is a pathetic cliche breakcore attempt

[impakt]

Pfft, every instrument deserves its own track and 3-4 aux tracks!

[TechDiff]

You make some very interesting points, many with which I agree, many with which I don't.

 

I really don't agree with your equating an awesome mastering job with making something sound ten times louder. This idea that mastering in in some away about making things louder, or "competitive", is completely false, and is only something that seems to have been bandied about in recent years. The traditional job of the mastering engineer was to: a) make a finished mix sound even better, either by removing problem sounds or frequencies, or processing the entire mix to sound better, b) making the mix translate well to as many different systems as possible, and c) taking the original high quality format and converting it into something ready for mass replication and distribution.

 

I also disagree very strongly that club based music needs to be compressed or limited MORE than music designed for home listening. The benefit of huge high quality PA systems is the increased dynamic range possible with something like a 10K system. Overly limited music tends to sound even more harsh and nasty on a good PA, whereas music that retains its dynamic range just sounds even better. If tracks are at very different levels, then it's the DJ's job to use the output gain controls on the DJ mixer to level match the tracks. I'd say compression and limiting were more important in high noise environments such as a regular home, or car environment.

 

I do agree with you on this, but I do think it's worth mentioning that the duties of a mastering engineer have evolved quite considerably. The traditional concept of being responsible for levelling tracks in order to make a consistent album is still valid in certain circumstances, but less so in regards to finishing EPs etc. love it or hate it, the loudness war is very present and the results are there for all to see, especially so in clubs and such. The result being that there is pressure on a mastering engineer to bring things to a level comparable to other releases in the similar genre. I'm not suggesting this is a good thing, but you can be sure that mastering houses that gain good repute amongst labels are the ones which can deliver a well mixed and balanced result at a comparatively good volume.

 

This is a weird one, To be honest I wouldn't suggest that high levels of compression or limiting are great in any circumstance, but what I would say is that a large rig in a gig environment is more forgiving, (aside from anything, Id rather the compression and limiting on my tracks had been applied by a mastering engineer than an in house sound guy and his mixers built in limiter) But this also goes back to the loudness war issue. Say for example a DJ had a track he wanted to play midway through his set, but the master was comparatively quieter that everything else in his set. There'd be 3 options really, reduce the overall volume of his set (I'm yet to meet a DJ that would choose this option) turn that track up and distort the mixer channel (I know a few that would do this) or simply omit the track from the set list, tbh the most likely scenario. It's a shame, but that IMO is the reality of the situation.

 

 

 

I completely disagree that, if you are a producer/mix engineer etc., you should NEVER put anything on your master channel. Expert mixers have been using EQ and compression on the two-buss since the '50's and before... The problem comes with inexperience, and people in far from ideal acoustic situations trying to create a quick fix to a problem that should have been sorted in the mix. I'd recommend NOT putting anything on the master channel (especially any form of Brick Wall Limiting), until you are 100% satisfied with the sound of your mix. Then it may well not need any.

 

well this is true, and as you mention, a lot of it is to do with working in a less than ideal environment. I tend to take the stance that working on the master channel is no longer affecting the mix of the track, but instead the overall tone which is something Id certainly leave to the mastering engineer. Regardless of how well treated my studio may be, Im certain that it's crappy compared to the mastering house. also, with regards to EQ is a very risky business, simply because any bad decisions make the mastering engineers task harder/impossible. It certainly does come down to experience but honestly for 90% of the producers out there it's something left well alone.

 

The myth of valves has been overstated. There are good valves, and bad valves, good valve designs and bad valve designs, good solid state designs, and terrible ones, great digital processors and converters, and awful ones etc. What it comes down to at the end of the day, as I keep stressing, is DOES IT SOUND GOOD?

 

well, I think this is a bit of misunderstanding. I'm not directly saying OMG Toobs rule! Just that from my experience a good outboard compressor can achieve far better results than many software ones. I think you can get away with much higher levels of compression without as many noticeable side affects, and with the really nice ones you get a much brighter tone too, something to do with harmonic distortion I think. Also, for using in a musical way, a la Clark, the result is nearly always nicer. Anyway, you're absolutely right, there are good and bad outboard ones. But really, any mastering studio worth it's salt should have a couple solid units to call upon when needed.

 

I guess it's a lot of horses for courses like stuff really. More than anything it does come down to how well presented you can expect the final thing to be. I've done stuff where I've been confident sending a completely untouched master because I know it's gonna be sympathetically worked on later, and I've also sent more of less completely mastered tracks, knowing full well that the 'mastering process' is gonna be some dude with Sony Wave Hammer. It's definitely interesting hearing it from the engineers perspective though! :)

[hardcode]

sony wave hammer - ive used dat

[Soloman Tump]

some "sound" advise in this thread - thanks again WATMM. Those tweakheadz pages are particularly useful

 

Everytime I think ive finished a track, I listen to the track I "finished" before and realize theres so much more that can be done (and generally that it sounds shit)....

 

Someone on this forum once said that for a couple of years you will make music that you thinks great, but is in fact awful. Plenty of truth in that.

[TechDiff]

 

Someone on this forum once said that for a couple of years you will make music that you thinks great, but is in fact awful. Plenty of truth in that.

 

hahaha, most annoying truth ever! I get that so much! Listen to a track that's a couple years old, and just face palm at the (lack of) production. especially considering how much Id been marvelling in my own awesomeness at the time.

 

well, I guess everyone still has some tracks that will stand the test of time, normally the ones with a cool melody or vibe, kinda rises above the level of production. I'm sure there's some message in that somewhere... Fucked if I know.