mastering

[vicky]

I wasn't sure if I should post this in peer to peer...I've noticed that quite a few people posting material are not following through to the final stages of mastering...and I wanted to throw it out there....doing the final stages helps everything sound much better, and can also point out the mix issues that you need to go back to...also this will help with relative volumes, eq, and normalizing, compression, limiting....I'm no guru with recording, but this is an important stage, not to be missed, and often what is lacking in posted material (is this because we're posting rough mixes?)...just curious on anyones thought about the mastering part of recording... thanks..love ya'll. Vicky

[ibanez468]

vickytbp,Honestly, I think there are folks who post alot of their material just to get some feedback, and see if they're going in the right direction, etc, etc...if that's the case, there's probably no reason to master anything, if in fact they have to go back to the drawing board and redo things. What's the point? You must be refering to tunes that have been forwarded? If that's the case, then I can understand where you're comin' from. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time, don't you think?, if you have to go back and revise things anyway. Just my $.01.ibanez468BTW -- I've noticed some folks start their thread by saying the tune is a rough mix, so I wouldn't expect any mastering to be done at that stage. I mean, I wouldn't. But don't get me wrong...I DO hear what you're sayin'. It's probably not on some people's mind to master rough mixes, although there's certainly not anything wrong with doin' it. Just seems like a wasted step ta' me if a person knows that the piece is not in it's true finished form. And also, I've read (on several different occasions) that the expert mastering engineers of the music biz say that if things are not recorded & mixed properly from the get go, all the mastering in the world is not gonna' help the tune.

[marcblack30]

I hear ya Vicky, I always master my stuff before sharing, even if it is just a rough idea. It's obviously easier to listen to mastered demos.I have to say though, before I discovered my mastering software, my mixes sounded like crap but I was just happy at the time just to be listening to myself singing and playing my original tunes. Once in a while I come across an old mix or first draft that I know I shared with people and I can only hope and pray that they lost or destroyed the evidence! It's a little embarrassing.I use T-Racks24 to master my demo’s, it’s very easy to use and I can’t imagine being without it.How about you VTBP and others, what software do you use to master your music?

[mikegoudreau]

Hey Vicky,I'm not a recording guru in the least...But in the last year or so my studio partner Jean Custeau and I have been doing our recording process this way:We mix the song as best as we can and then we add the mastering effect to see what needs to be re-adjusted ( usually it's the cymbals are too loud/bright or kick or bass is too boomy etc )...We do this since reading an article in mix magazine ....Mix master and re-mix was the title I believe...Since using this method our final mixes have improved and it's getting so that we are often on the money on the 1st attempt with the mix.I never post un-mastered stuff...But I rarely post for opinions too.Hope this helps.Cheers,Mike

[hummingbird]

Hi Vicky - good thread. I think there are three main things going on on the mastering front:1 - people are posting rough mixes for feedback on composition or songwriting2 - people are learning how to produce and need feedback on production elements & use of VIs, etc.3 - in film/tv you have to be careful about mastering, since all the music will mastered by the film music editor (or some such person) and having 'mastered masters' can create problems. So we need to master our mixes enough to "sell" them to the listees, but not master them so much that they will cause an issue when used. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be well-mixed, of course. H

[ibanez468]

Marc B,I use the same as you. Very nice program. I'm sure there are others out there that are probably better than "T", but it does well by me. And it is very easy to use. I wonder if some of the other mastering programs are as easy? If not, that could cause one to hold off mastering until it was absolutely necessary. Time consumption is probably the one thing that everybody's really tryin' to keep in check. It can be a hard thing to manage sometimes, depending on how many different things one has goin' on in their life.ibanez468

[mazz]

I try to get the mix as kick ass as I can and then after that on the master fader I've been using the Precision Maximizer on the UAD-1 card. Depending on the type of music I'll use less or more of the maximizer. If I want some dynamics I'll use less of it, if I need a more in your face electro sound, I'll add it a bit more (it has a mix control). The maximizer basically gives more apparent level without messing with the peaks too much (unless you want it to).Less is more in mastering, particularly with library stuff. Pounding it right up to .00005 dB below 0 gives the client absolutely no room to do any processing they may want to do. They need to do another destructive step to lower the level down so they can do any processing/mastering they feel might be necessary. I always try to leave 2 or 3 dB below clipping during mixing, not by reducing it later. A clipped waveform is still a clipped waveform whether it's at 0 or -6! Libraries release CDs or DVDs or Hard Drives of music and they probably want consistency from piece to piece, even if they're by different composers. How do I know the collection the library is going to put my music in or what pieces are before or after mine? It's pretty tough to master in a vacuum!!I've used T-Racks and it's pretty cool but I've gone to this Precision Maximizer plug-in and it's been working out very well. I also do a lot of compressing of groups like percussion or brass rather than compressing the overall mix very much. Mastering is a different discipline from mixing.Mazz

[ibanez468]

Quote:I try to get the mix as kick ass as I can...Yeah mazz, that's mainly where I focus the most attention to too. Quote:I also do a lot of compressing of groups like percussion or brass rather than compressing the overall mix very much. I've been known to do that as well, especially if something really needs it. Sometimes, if you managed to get a really fine mix, there's almost no need to compress it, or do anything else to it other than mix that puppy down. Or if you plan on compressing or limiting a really fine mix, it would usually be done very lightly. Nothing extreme. I've been lucky on a few occasions to experience that. But it all started with good recordings of the instruments first, and then some diligent mixing behind that. Those 2 things take the greatest amount of my time.Quote:Mastering is a different discipline from mixing.Absolutely!ibanez468

[vicky]

Quote:3 - in film/tv you have to be careful about mastering, since all the music will mastered by the film music editor (or some such person) and having 'mastered masters' can create problems. So we need to master our mixes enough to "sell" them to the listees, but not master them so much that they will cause an issue when used. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be well-mixed, of course. ..Vikkia few of you experienced with library music mentioned not overdo-ing the mastering tools so the film and TV people can have room to do this...that crossed my mind as I started this thread...this very good info.....I'm using the mastering window in Adobe Audition right now... I have alot of choices....I just got Logic an hour ago, so I might be moving some things over to that program....I use multiband compression on instruments...and hard limit the mix at the end.....I'm not going to push this as much anymore, because of the advice on this thread.....I did learn to go very light on the Chill listing to keep the air-y-ness....mikegoudreau...I discovered "Mix master and re-mix" on my last song...very good advice...Mazz....is a maximizer the same as normalization? so you're not squashing anything, but making it as loud as possible? on another thread I mentioned your great spy tune sounded quiet, and that's what got me thinking about the mastering of library music...thanks,Vicky

[mazz]

Here's the scoop on the Precision Maximizer straight from the company:http://www.uaudio.com/products/software ... ndex.htmlI haven't done normalization in a long time. Normalization basically looks at the highest peak and brings that up to zero and as a result it brings everything else up by the same amount. So if your highest peak was at -3 db, it would bring everything up 3db. It doesn't change anything except the overall level. That really doesn't do anything for your mix to make it punchier or anything else except to "turn it up". It's just a gain change referenced to 0.The maximizer I use does have a limiter in it but I don't use it that much, particularly for orchestral music. I find it squashes the air out of the mix which can be appropriate for some styles of music. Sometimes I use the multiband function but often I'll just use it in single band mode as an overall "leveler" for the mix. I'll do a lot of A/B'ing while I listen at different volumes. How much I use depends on the style of music. I do like the overall depth it seems to bring out in the mixes, even for more ambient stuff it really brings out some qualities I like.Also, make sure you have an unmastered mix available or easily recall-able in case the client requests that. Cheers,Mazz