Mastering songs

[gen5020]

I am having a terrible time getting my tunes HOT! I have fairly good gear and I know what I'm doing for the most part but when I compare my tracks with others (doing mostly production music), mine sound wimpy and a few notches quieter than others. I know I can spend more money and get them mastered which will probably do the trick but I'm wondering if anyone has a secret piece of gear or trick up your sleeve that could help me. I have been in other forums where you wouldn't even bring this subject up, because they assume you will indeed, master your recordings. But most of us are plugging songs, doing rewrites and/or pumping out production music and we're trying to keep costs down to a minumum (at least I am). So here is the question: Care to share what you are doing in this department? I'd really like to hear what Matto and you other big shots are doing in the production field. Also, any tips on gear or technique?Thanks everyone.Dave

[ernstinen]

Hi Dave,I've been mastering since the analog days, and I used to rent a great EQ (Massenburg) and used a bit of stereo compression going to reel-to-reel tape. Man, there's nothing like analog tape to beef up levels.But, alas, those days are gone (some still mix to 1/2" analog tape), but I decided that maintaining a tape recorder didn't make much sense anymore.So now I run one analog pass into an Empirical Labs "Fatso Jr," which simulates analog tape, consoles, compressors etc. It's a marvelous piece of hardware, but it's (gulp) $2000.Well, through that, I go into an Alesis Masterlink and record at 24/96. Then I do a digital feed into Pro Tools LE and fool around with a T-Racks EQ. I try and keep the levels as high as possible, ignoring the LED meters unless I hear audible digital distortion.Once that sounds nice, I go back digitally into the Masterlink, and it automatically reduces the mix to the CD standard.____________________________________________I know this is a little more "hi-tech" answer than you're looking for, so here's what I would do on a budget: Use a "little" bit of stereo compression; Add a "little" bit of really high EQ and really low EQ (18k & 50hz or so ---); And use your ears on peak levels.BTW, alot of people really overdo it with "normalizing" and compression. Louder is not necessarily better. Make your masters sound warm and musical.My 2 cents,Ern

[koopaloop]

Hey Dave,Listened to your stuff. Only listened to a couple of tracks, but to be honest, from what I heard. THeir levels seem just fine to me. Im interested to hear what others think too.... And the T-racks unit I use is the whole thing. The T-racks 24, its got the EQ, Compression, Limiter, and Peak Lmt.Its a VST so it can be used like that or you can use the seperate parts seperatelly. Like Comp on one track, EQ on another, Limit on another, and then Comp/EQ/Limit, on the final mix. etc.Some great sounding tracks there by the way.Is that you on the sax? KK

[andreh]

Dave-You can approach it either way, but fixing an issue in the mix is usually preferable to doing it in mastering since you can better target the problem instrument or frequencies.Reducing a mix's bass content won't make the mix louder by itself, but it will often allow you to apply more peak limiting and overall gain before the signal starts to sound like poop. This can be afffected by other aspects of the mix, though, so you'll have play it "by ear."You should check with a music library before you assume they want superhot tracks. Some libraries want to do the mastering themselves (though this is mostly true with the higher-end ones), in which case they'll want you to leave some headroom in the mix.If your music sounds great, it's unlikely a library will choose not to accept it because it's marginally lower than other tracks in their stable...although they may ask for hotter versions at some point, so it doesn't hurt to be able to provide them. Your stuff isn't exactly "quiet" anyway. None of the libraries I've been accepted to (or ANY music recipient, for that matter, including game developers, TV/film producers, and advertisers) have ever made special requestes for ultra-hot levels in all my years of producing music. The exception, of course, is the mastering projects I've done for CD releases, but even then only the hiphopp guys seem overly concerned about a slammed signal.This is probably because in most contexts where music in not the spotlight there's plenty of headroom available in the medium (20dB's in film, 6dB's in most broadcast, variable in games), and there are other audio elements that need to be heard over the music so it ends up being turned down anyway.I"m interested to hear Matto's take on this, since he has lots of library experience; surely more than I do.Andre