Basic mastering procedures?

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:47 pm

open question to the informed pedophiles of this topic: can you honestly tell the difference in sound quality from one plugin to the next?

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:50 pm

liquidstudios wrote:

open question to the informed pedophiles of this topic: can you honestly tell the difference in sound quality from one plugin to the next?

To defend the pedophiles (I wouldn't want to offend them)... didn't you mean audiophiles? Laughing

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:24 am

CD Architect is the business, a great audio CD burning program.

You are right in saying that it is a viable option for burning direct to CD but the reasons I use SF first and then CDA to burn are because (in Soundforge Cool

of the statistics, spectrum analysis and the fact you can use VST plugins, make DC offset adjustments and check for clipping and adjust with clipped peak restoration tools if necessary, etc.

But it's true that CDA offers quite a bit of overlap with SF such as plugin chain, crossfades, fade outs and even cutting and pasting audio (although SF has more tools for this) and is pretty functional in many instances as a stand alone program, particularly if the mix is good to begin with.

Proper mastering (especially done by pros) enhances a good mix even more, use of precision eqs, top line converters, top line compressors/limiters, stereo tools, harmonics adjustments, etc. It can push the levels more with less artifacts and dynamic range and add the gloss and refinement that turns a good sounding mix into an excellent sounding mix. Home mastering is more geared to pumping up levels and doing some cruder eq adjustments than is possible by pros in mastering rooms full of top range equipment, acoustics, monitoring and experienced professionals.

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:24 am

corrupted wrote:

Another intersting thought... to me, at least:
Whenever I ask about this, I get the reply that you shouldn't need mastering unless I'm trying to "fix" something... in other words, I should be able to mix well enough to not need a mastering professional.

So, say I was good enough? Why have mastering then?

Good question.

Firstly, mastering exists to make a professional, high quality transfer to a production master medium. In the past there was no way around going to mastering. Nobody had a vinyl lathe or 1630 in their mix studio. Presently technology allows anybody to make a pmcd on their computer. However there is still a distinction between what the average musician can produce on their own, and what a reputable mastering facility can produce.

Secondly, mastering fixes errors in the mix. Few mix environments have calibrated listening environments, therefore there are bound to be aural judgment errors made.

Thirdly, mastering provides a fresh ear to the project and can compare it to a large library of other successful commercial releases made in the same facility. Above and beyond fixing problems, mastering can enhance and bring out the full potential of a recording. Mastering makes the project work at the album level.

The idea that an engineer should make perfect mixes and not have to go to mastering is naive. All of the "best-of-the-best" recording/mixing engineers take there material to mastering. Why? Because they know it makes their final product better.

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:32 am

liquidstudios wrote:

can you honestly tell the difference in sound quality from one plugin to the next?

Of course. You can too (assuming you have a reasonable monitoring system). Insert a plugin with its settings flat. Using quality reference music you know well, listen to the output, A/B'ing between "in" and "bypass". Listen to the character of degradation. Now listen to a different plug in the same way. I find the character changes from plugin to plugin, some having less degradation than others.

Moderator Joined: Sep 12, 2002 Posts: 1862 Location: NYC

liquidstudios wrote:

open question to the informed pedophiles of this topic: can you honestly tell the difference in sound quality from one plugin to the next?

Come on, quit being a punk. If you want to participate intelligently, then great. Otherwise i'll delete every post you put in this forum.

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:42 pm

Zilla wrote:

The idea that an engineer should make perfect mixes and not have to go to mastering is naive. All of the "best-of-the-best" recording/mixing engineers take there material to mastering. Why? Because they know it makes their final product better.

And, moreover, they not only take their mixes to an ME everytime, they also mix in a manner as to prepare the tracks for mastering. They leave headroom (well, I should say "they MIX with headroom in the first place"), don't try to maximize the hell out of it (I know, just restating point 1, kinda), they don't screw with fades and they make the mixes with plenty o' dynamics. If the artist wants a "loud, radio-ready" mix right then and there, they've been known to throw it through an L2 to give the clients something to walk away with or, if it's just for their benefit then and there - they turn up the volume...novel, eh?

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:56 pm

im not being a smart ass, im serious. if you think can i would argue that your ears are messing with you. how can any plugin have degregation? the sound doesnt run through and electro magnet circuitry.

the parameters you could argue, and sure maybe you can "hear" a difference in that sense.

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:03 pm

Zilla, Cucco...
Thanks for the replies. I'm just confused about the whole thing. I have a very good understanding of what mastering is and why it's done, but I had to ask because around here (and everywhere else) there's a very "wishy-washy" crowd when it comes to discussing this.

Basically, here's a sequence of events for example:

1) I ask "how can I use some of my tools to basically master my tracks?"
2) Someone says "you can't, you're not good enough"
3) Someone else says "you should just finalize with some basic tools... that will be good enough for you"
4) Someone else says "Only master if someone else mixed it and you're not happy with the result".

And still, I ask over and over "what are the do's and don'ts of basic mastering?". I feel like I'm talking to some people who want to keep job security... and if they let out the secrets they'll be out of work.

All I'm looking for are replies like:
"Well, I start out by making sure it sounds alright to begin with, and then I run it through a light compressor and bring the peak level up to 0db. Etc, etc, etc. Then I listen through to make sure the stereo image feels correct and that the overall EQ of the track is in the right range. Etc, etc, etc."

But, maybe there is no science to this, and that's why I can't get any straight answers... maybe they just try new things all over the place. Wink

When it all boils down to it, I think the best benefits are the new set of ears and the equipment/experience involved. So I ask, how can I start to understand and do this myself? Were these guys born with some inherent knowledge? Doubt it.

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:04 pm

liquidstudios wrote:

im not being a smart ass, im serious. if you think can i would argue that your ears are messing with you. how can any plugin have degregation? the sound doesnt run through and electro magnet circuitry.

the parameters you could argue, and sure maybe you can "hear" a difference in that sense.

Smart ass or not, you're still one hell of a retard.

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:05 pm

......................................?

uh,

..........................................?

riiiIIIIiight.

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:15 pm

Well, corrupted - you're on the right path. The first step is to ask questions and learn. You're hitting the proverbial brick wall that many wannabe MEs hit before they start doing it "for real."

First - the reason a lot of folks say "If you have to ask about mastering, you can't do it." is because, on these forums, it seems like an endless supply of these kinds of questions. It's only when someone is persistent that it starts to ecome apparent that they really mean business.

So...again, you're off to the right start.

I would tend to *kind of* agree that much of it has to do with getting a fresh pair of ears. But, from experience, I can say that the biggest difference is the environment itself. For the longest time, I would master on near or mid-fields. The results I got were good, but certainly not great and definitely did not warrant what I charge now (though it's a bit more than I used to charge.)

When I moved into my mastering suite (really not long ago at all), I found that there were so many things that I just wasn't hearing on my nearfields. Bass, treble, a sense of space and depth, the true stereo image, etc.

Then of course came the battle between plug-ins and hardware. For the longest time I used exclusively plugs. Mainly because they are what I could afford. It wasn't until a few months ago that I started diving into the real hardware side of things. Don't get me wrong - some plug-ins are great. I have just fallen in love with the Pultec Pro and the Precision Mastering EQ on the UAD card as well as the Algorithmix EQs (Orange mainly - though a good outboard EQ can be had for the same amount, it won't sound near as good.)

As for do's and don'ts - that's pretty simple -

Do make the mix sound right
Don't make the mix sound wrong

I don't think anyone was born with some inherint knowledge. Personally, I find that I rely on my classical training more than anything else. I try to make things sound like a good orchestra would - whether it's a rock band, a country group, hip hop or whatever. The tonal balance and overall impact, to me should sound the same or pretty close to it.

Sorry...was that just rambling or was it useful at all?

J.

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:47 pm

Corrupted,

Reasons you are not getting the nitty-gritty answers you want...Yes, ME's will protect any hard earned and hard learned technics which give them a competitive edge. What business is going to give R&D like that away for free on the www? Would you if your living depended on it? Any truly experienced professional will only share generalities with you. Also your question is too broad for anybody to give a comprehensive answer in a forum like this. So you, in turn, are receiving very broad answers. Mastering, like any other phase of music production, is not process by numbers: Not basic.

Top mastering engineers I know do have an innate musical talent. Also most had apprenticed with top engineers when they started. This is no different than being like any other kind of accomplished musician. You have to be born with some kind of talent, a good teacher really helps, and you need years of practice; paying your do's.

My advice to you for starting to understand how to do this yourself is to become an audiophile. ME's I know started out as Hi-Fi bugs. Developing an appreciation for quality sound and attention to detail serves well in mastering. Then if you can somehow apprentice with a working ME, that will also help greatly.

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:39 pm

Zilla wrote:

Corrupted,

Reasons you are not getting the nitty-gritty answers you want...Yes, ME's will protect any hard earned and hard learned technics which give them a competitive edge. What business is going to give R&D like that away for free on the www? Would you if your living depended on it?

There is quite a high level of anonymity on here. The best ME could share his top 10 most coveted secrets to the world on here and maybe if very unluckily he'll have maybe 1% infringing on his business. The truth is that it takes a lot of real hard work to get any business to be successful. If your the best at what you do there's no reason why you can't be really successful. The world is completely abundant. It is highly unlikely that letting out some basic starting points or secret tricks will effect you at the "local level".

That said, There's folk on here at the hobbyist level like myself that are looking for information, basic starting point's, and tips and tricks to get their own mixes to sound somewhat radio worthy (College radio, local radio). I like many others, don't have the many years of experience, great sounding rooms, and a vast array of the best equipment in the world to work with. Like many I have a great mix and would like to learn some mastering basics to give my mix a little shine.

I know that success at the professional level is done with teamwork. If I was working with a large budget in a band, I would seek a reputable studio then a Mastering house for my bands music.

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:35 am

We go directly from our DAW to a DEQ2496 to a Masterlink.

This topic sponsored by: