mastering...why so anal?

[wannaberocker]

Hey guys, im a total noob to mastering (yeah, im faking it) but i can't help but notice that when some other noob asks for direction almost all answers are evasive and condescending. Why won't someone simply say that mastering reveals the extreme high frequencies in a mix which is acomplished by removing the lows, mids and mid-highs, untill the desired clarity is acheived? Using say a C4 multiband or whatever, then the mix is limited with an L1 or L2 till the desired volume out put is acheived. You can crush alot more with out all those muddy freqs hiding your valuable high freqs.

(Putting on my bullet proof vest and grabbing my shot gun.....)

Maybe i am missing the boat but what else could it be? If you do this and the mix sounds bad still, then retrack/remix until its right. It is almost like tracking, mixing, and mastering should be done all at the same time, unless you are absolutely shure that your ingredients (tracked sounds) when mixed taste (sound) like what you want to hear. After all you can't make diahrea taste like chocolate cake.

(running to bomb shelter to hide)

But then what do i know. I get frustrated when it does not come out right also. Maybe i am on the wrong track....... no pun intended!

[bgrotto]

*gulp*

Here we go...

[Ged Leitch]

Sure some guys are perfectionists here but they do mean well.

Take it from me, there really are no set chains/rules/presets when mastering!!

I know through personal expirience the top dogs here rarely if ever use multiband Compressors.

Running a mix through the chain you mentioned wont get the sound you are seeking - if it did, you wouldnt be posting the question.

What it is about is getting really good mixes that have fine tuned to perfection(seriously) then adding some polish(sometimes not!) and maybe some "Gelling" Compression, its then a question of "How loud do I/you want it?"

No mystique, theres just so so much mis-information on the web and stuff it's easy to be misled.

Dont mean to be harsh mate - just telling you the way it really is.

[dannygold]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

Why won't someone simply say that mastering reveals the extreme high frequencies in a mix which is acomplished by removing the lows, mids and mid-highs, untill the desired clarity is acheived?

Why won't someone say that? Um... because it's not true?

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

. Why won't someone simply say that mastering reveals the extreme high frequencies in a mix which is acomplished by removing the lows, mids and mid-highs, untill the desired clarity is acheived? Using say a C4 multiband or whatever, then the mix is limited with an L1 or L2 till the desired volume out put is acheived.

Well, most likely nobody will say that because that's not what mastering is.

But I see where you are going - yes, it can add clarity and depth, and in today's world, it usually means greater level too, but the description you provide is far from common.

The tools aren't rocket science (well, OK, some of them seem to be...), but the application is just not as simple and uniform as many would like to believe. When posters ask a complex question and are disappointed that the answer isn't simple, don't shoot the messenger.

[Trell Blaze]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

Hey guys, im a total noob to mastering (yeah, im faking it) but i can't help but notice that when some other noob asks for direction almost all answers are evasive and condescending. Why won't someone simply say that mastering reveals the extreme high frequencies in a mix which is acomplished by removing the lows, mids and mid-highs, untill the desired clarity is acheived? Using say a C4 multiband or whatever, then the mix is limited with an L1 or L2 till the desired volume out put is acheived. You can crush alot more with out all those muddy freqs hiding your valuable high freqs.

No one will "simply" say that because that's not what mastering is. I'm not a mastering engineer. I'm a better-than-average mixer and I HAVE mastered before (did a pretty good job) so I can tell you with confidence that any credible ME will rarely use multi-band comps...C4 included. You'll find mixed reviews about the L1/L2/L3 - depends on the style of the engineer.

I've heard many engineers - including ones that post here - say that if you need to use multi-band comps then there's something terribly wrong with the mix and it should be re-mixed if at all possible.


If mastering was just about revealing high frequencies, then all you'd have to do is boost the highs, slap an L3 on it and charge $1500. Why the heck would an ME need Manley Massive Passives and half dozen highly expensive Crane Song units just to "excite" an album? Why dish out several thousand dollars for a leveling aplifier when all you have to do is pull out your Waves bundle?

(Putting on my bullet proof vest and grabbing my shot gun.....)

Maybe i am missing the boat but what else could it be? If you do this and the mix sounds bad still, then retrack/remix until its right. It is almost like tracking, mixing, and mastering should be done all at the same time, unless you are absolutely shure that your ingredients (tracked sounds) when mixed taste (sound) like what you want to hear. After all you can't make diahrea taste like chocolate cake.

(running to bomb shelter to hide)

Mixing and mastering shouldn't even be done by the same person, let alone at the same time. You have to have a fresh and objective set of ears when you're finalizing a project. Not to mention a mastering engineer's room SHOULD be calibrated to be a lot more accurate than any recording studio's control room. If the room you mixed in has a boost at 300k, you will likely cut some of this frequency during the mix. What do you think is going to happen when you master the same song in this same room?

But then what do i know. I get frustrated when it does not come out right also. Maybe i am on the wrong track....... no pun intended!

Before I say this, let me say that I'm not being an ass nor am I trying to be offensive.

If I were a potential client for your mastering services, your first paragraph would've sent me packing. There's no way I should have a better grasp of mastering than the person I'm trusting my project with.

I would suggest that you study some books on mastering (I hear Bob Katz has one of the best ones out there) before you begin taking peoples money.

[Harvey Gerst]

Weiss mastering eq's start at around $5,000 and go up from there. And you need two of them to do stereo. Your in-the-box software ain't gonna come close to these eq's. Neither is your L1 or L2 module.

Yes, mastering engineers are an elite bunch of guys, but it's because they can do amazing stuff - even when you think you've done everything possible to make a great record. They take that, and make it even better.

Yeah, I can use Izotope and get customers a louder product, but I'll recommend Jay, the Bobs (Katz and Olhsson) and the other greats every time.

[Trell Blaze]

Hey, Harvey. Don't you post over at Home Recording BBS? You're the guy who designed/built his own headphones, no?

[wannaberocker]

thanx for the insight....i have alot to learn. I wish i could see it done begining to end! I am ashamed but i thought i was onto something.
my mixes always seem to lack that nice airy crispness that makes it seem alive. so i did try the methods i listed and it seemed to work but it felt like that was to easy. just wanted to hear some thoughts. luv you all!

[Boomshanka]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

Why won't someone simply say that mastering reveals the extreme high frequencies in a mix which is acomplished by removing the lows, mids and mid-highs, untill the desired clarity is acheived? Using say a C4 multiband or whatever, then the mix is limited with an L1 or L2 till the desired volume out put is acheived.

Um, because it just ain't true.

[Trell Blaze]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

thanx for the insight....i have alot to learn. I wish i could see it done begining to end! I am ashamed but i thought i was onto something.
my mixes always seem to lack that nice airy crispness that makes it seem alive. so i did try the methods i listed and it seemed to work but it felt like that was to easy. just wanted to hear some thoughts. luv you all!

If those methods get the sound YOU want, then by all means keep at it. It's not a bad thing at all. Your sound is your sound. You should make it how you want it and get it how you get it.

However, when you're dealing with clients with opinions and tastes very different from your own...

[wannaberocker]

I want to do it right. I do alot of very cheap or free projects for friends. I try to master my own stuff. It is tough and feels like a losing battle. i have pro tools le, 2 api pres, 2 OSA pres, 4 digi 002 pres, and an LA610 pre and one shure ksm27, and waves gold. It seems like my sounds tracked in are always dull sounding and life-less and require imense processing to even sound ok to me. I feel that i should have a great advantage with the gear i own, but i still feel like i am lost. People like my work but they could just be saying that because i do it for nothing except just to learn. 2 years of doing this and it still feels way out of reach. Ready to sell my stuff!

[wannaberocker]

BTW when i attempt my at home mastering i try to use my PAZ freq analyzer and try to emulate the spectral curve of albums i like, just as kind of a guide. It seems i have to dump alot of mids and lows, i try not to boost the highs, but rather cut out the mud. maybe my tracking/mixing should be in question if i have to do such radical global eq'ing (what i thought mastering was).
Should freshly tracked, unprocessed sounds ( i am just talking mic and pre into daw) sound like a finished-product sound, or does every one have to eq the crap out of things? Maybe i am a genius to make the musicians i work with sound the way they do? (doubt it though). I wish i could send one of you guys a session with audio and plug-ins and get some criticism. Maybe i have bad mic technique and am trying to grow flowers in the desert...so to speak.

[wannaberocker]

Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst

Weiss mastering eq's start at around $5,000 and go up from there. And you need two of them to do stereo. Your in-the-box software ain't gonna come close to these eq's. Neither is your L1 or L2 module.

Yes, mastering engineers are an elite bunch of guys, but it's because they can do amazing stuff - even when you think you've done everything possible to make a great record. They take that, and make it even better.

Yeah, I can use Izotope and get customers a louder product, but I'll recommend Jay, the Bobs (Katz and Olhsson) and the other greats every time.

Aren't weiss mastering eq's essentially multi-band compressors?

[Trell Blaze]

The last thing you should do is give up (selling your gear).

Years and years...and more years of experience is required. I don't know of any instant engineers. Mixing or mastering.

I've been producing/composing/writing/recording for 10 years but I only spent about 5 of those years mixing. I've spat out more crappy (unmasterable) mixes than you can imagine. Not until my 4th year did I put out a mix that I felt comfortable putting on an LP. Now I've gotten to the point where ALMOST every new mix is better than the last.

[Harvey Gerst]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

Aren't weiss mastering eq's essentially multi-band compressors?

Nope, they're straight 7 band eq's with 0.1 dB steps.

[Harvey Gerst]

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

Hey, Harvey. Don't you post over at Home Recording BBS? You're the guy who designed/built his own headphones, no?

Actually, I modify existing phones that I found to be durable and a cheap solution to the breakage problem with a lot of tracking phones. And yes, I post at Home Recording when I can, and I also have my own forum at Pro Sound Web. But I've known Jules since before he started Gearslutz, and I post here too, just not as often.

[macc]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

Should freshly tracked, unprocessed sounds ( i am just talking mic and pre into daw) sound like a finished-product sound, or does every one have to eq the crap out of things?

Always in audio the trick is to get it as right as possible, as early as possible.

- Recording something, it sounds great, then moving on and doing something else

- Recording something, it sounds crap, then eqing it for hours until it sounds 'alright'

Given the options, which would you say is more ideal?


With regard to mastering, scooping out loads of low mids won't do you any good on a track that arrives sound tinny and thin

:)

[hanuman]

Hahaha, using the word anxx for analog, how funny is that?

[Lagerfeldt]

I believe he was referring to anal as in anal retentive:
Anal retentive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common usage
The term is often used in a colloquial, derogatory sense to describe a person with such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, and can be carried out to the detriment of the anal-retentive person.

-
I think mastering engineers myself included are more anally retentive than your average person or musician. We are the final quality check before thousands of cd's are printed - the audio must be of the highest standard in all respects.

[Silvertone]

Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst

Weiss mastering eq's start at around $5,000 and go up from there. And you need two of them to do stereo.

Hi Harvey,
Just to let you know Weiss mastering EQ's are stereo (so you don't need two of them, yeah!!!). They also allow you to process in the M/S domain so you can EQ your side differently then your center (very cool).

Now a bit on why I'm so anal....

Mastering entails so much and is really dealt with on a song by song basis that there are no hard and fast rules.

Want to master yourself? Think like this...

Break the mix up (in your mind) into highs, mids and lows, listen to all three and see/hear/feel how they are represented in the mix. Are they even? Should they be? By that I mean are there more mid range instruments in the mix and if so should they be prominent? Think about the song. Does it want to be "all in your face" or is it a ballad and want you to relax (cause you should be mastering to the style as well). Now listen for specific problem areas... is the vocal in this song as loud as the one before it and after it? Should it be? Is the singer on the mic or back a bit? Where does the song call for the vocal to be? Remember VOCAL IS KING (at least in a pop mix, etc...) Now if I have to raise the vocal in the center... Does the kick, snare and bass come up too much... In other words there is a ying and yang to everything you do and you have to hear the positives and negatives and weigh which is more important for the song.

Now lets talk dynamics... can you really retain all 12 dB of dynamics in this song or do you know from experience that 60dB of road noise in a car is going to make it so you can't hear that soft part. Should you change it? Does the artist want you to change there dynamics? Usually not but then they will call complaining that in the car "I can't hear the soft parts and have to turn up the volume". So you need to have this knowledge ahead of time so you can explain to the artist what is going to happen in the car and allow THEM to make an INFORMED decision, etc...

Now this is just touching on one very small aspect of dynamics... there is so much more.

I could go on for hours actually but let me tell you my experience. I was a touring musician for 11 years and audio engineer for 20 years and have been a mastering engineer for the last 14 years. All told I have over 34 years experience in this business and in mastering I learn something new EVERYDAY.

There are no tricks just hard learned accumulative knowledge that has allowed me to keep going in this business after all this time...

So now you know the secrets of the mastering engineer.

Have fun on your journey and "keep you ears open".

best,
Larry

[beyarecords]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

Hey guys, im a total noob to mastering

May I recommend "Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science (Second Edition)" By Bob Katz.

[masteringhouse]

Thanks for the clarification on the Weiss units Larry, I hadn't finished my coffee and was afraid that I might have been mastering in mono all of these years! :)

Anyway, I'm anal-retentive about audio simply because I care (as others here). Why be mediocre? Anything less than good likely isn't worth listening to.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

Aren't weiss mastering eq's essentially multi-band compressors?

As already stated, nope, but they do offer a dynamic EQ option that makes it a cross between an EQ and a multi-band dynamics processor.

[Harvey Gerst]

Originally Posted by Silvertone

Hi Harvey,
Just to let you know Weiss mastering EQ's are stereo (so you don't need two of them, yeah!!!). They also allow you to process in the M/S domain so you can EQ your side differently then your center (very cool).

Larry

That's one of the reasons I shouldn't be allowed to do mastering. I stand corrected.

But my point is still valid; good mastering requires great tools and exceptional ears.

The GML Mastering eq is stereo and will set you back way over 10 grand. Few recording studios are willing to make those kinds of investments and home mastering wannabees definitely won't shell out the bucks needed for an acceptable set of mastering tools and a proper listening environment.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by wannaberocker

thanx f