Mastering your own records

[Jake Holland]

what do you do?

[MASSIVE Master]

I don't.

I found out very early - While I was being "thrown into" mastering (it's a long story, but it's out there somewhere) that working on my own recordings was a waste of time - Except for the "mundane" tasks such as sequencing and the actual authoring of the disc, any sonic manipulation was basically second-guessing what I did during mixing. It was incredibly easy to throw a maul-the-band compressor or some sort of exciter on and actually think it sounded "better" - when in hindsight, I was taking a set of perfectly decent mixes and turning them to crap.

Several mastering engineers told me that would happen before and I thought that I'd be different.

I wasn't.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Jake Holland

what do you do?

What do you do? Are you a mixer or a mastering engineer mostly? The hard part of doing both is you need two rooms, time, and mostly you need to know your limitations and strengths, and plan accordingly.

I will master my own music if I can ever get it done .... now 4 years into it, 5-6 hours per month doesn't get you there in a hurry. Mixing is the hard part for me. Mastering is satisfying, it completes the work. My mixes are pretty close and I master everyday, so it feels like home.

If I was a mixer by temperament, I would not master. My lack of mixing skill I make up for with time invested, and many great clients to run the mixes past. Not having a mastering room or mastering ear is not something that time can heal.

[Bob Yordan]

Hiya

I have a mixing room and a mastering room.

In the mixing room I used Event SP8 & Genelec 1030.

In the mastering room there are B&W 801 and Krk V6 + sub and Krk V4.

And sometimes my music buddy makes the mixing in his place on
Genelec 8040.

Best wishes

[syra]

I would say I master 70% of what I mix. There is always at least a 1-2 week break in between mixing and mastering to clear my head from that specific project. The reason I do it is because I can get exactly the results I want w/o the hassle of involving someone else. Of course having said that, there are specific ME's I'll use for their sound in particular projects. And finally its the stuff you don't have a choice on.

[Strobian]

I fall into what John already said. I send my material to be mastered. Either you believe in the process or you don't. Mastered material ( by a fresh set of ears) always sounds better than after I have mixed and worked on the track for a few weeks. I don't think its that great of an idea to master your own material, but that is my take.

[burke111]

I don't master, I keep mixing in the box until all songs are right.

I use limiters and such on the master buss and compress and limit individual tracks. I keep buring cds, checking, comparing song to song until it is done.

Sometimes for some clients I send it off to be mastered if they really feel it is needed but often if I am in charge I just keep mixing until everything is right.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Strobian

I fall into what John already said. I send my material to be mastered. Either you believe in the process or you don't. Mastered material ( by a fresh set of ears) always sounds better than after I have mixed and worked on the track for a few weeks. I don't think its that great of an idea to master your own material, but that is my take.

It's not a good idea to master anything unless you're a skilled mastering engineer. There are exceptions to any rule. Pierre Marchand, Daniel Lanois, etc. for me, "a fresh set of ears" can be mine, on another day, and I know what the client's after when the client is me.

Again, if you're a mixer don't master anything. If you're a masterer and somehow or other you've got the mixes to where you like them, then it's satisfying to finish it off.

[jordanstoner]

While I absolutely agree that you should not master your own music or mixes if they are to be pressed, sent to duplication, distributed (in any format), and/or released as a final product, there are considerations to be made if the previous conditions are not true.

What is the intended use?
What is the target medium?
What is the market potential?
What is the total commercial exposure?

Is it going to be a demo? Is it going to be a major release? Is it only for you and a select few friends? Will it be played in a club? Will it be on the radio? etc, etc, etc.

If you are asking a bunch of mastering folks how you should master your own album, chances are you're asking because you don't know. If you don't know, then you need to consider the questions above and make a decision on whether or not MASTERING in and of itself is necessary or appropriate to your project.

If it is, then you should find a mastering engineer and talk to him or her about the project. Get them to listen to it and tell you where the problems are in the mix, if any. Also discuss the realistic budget from the beginning, so you both know what to expect (and if you can afford them or if they are willing to work on a sliding scale if not). Finish up your mixes and pay them to do what they do. Chances are, you won't regret it, and you'll learn a lot if you communicate with them effectively.

[GYang]

I always master my mixes.
Always try my best and use intuition and other skills I got from years of exeprience with sound in general.
Then I send mixes to pro mastering engineer and compare results.
Sometimes I like them better, sometimes not, but for sure my own skills improved to degree that I can live with masters I did by myself.

[jdtrbn]

After I had learned about mixing, mastering and processing in general, I took some of my old songs to see what I could do with them.

The result? I couldn't make any of them sound better. Processing with saturation and compression made them sound worse. I had simply made them the way I wanted them during mixing.

Now, if I had a mastering level monitoring, maybe I could hear problems I don't hear now. And a mastering engineer could possibly find some processing my songs could benefit from. But if I had a great monitoring, why wouldn't I mix with it?

But anyway, until I get different experiences, I will think that doing something myself after the mix feels ready is unnecessary. With a compilation it would be a bit different, because I'd like to have similar levels (turning down the loudest tracks ) and balance.

[Edward_Vinatea]

I do {guilty as charged}. One of my biggest joys in my life has been mastering my first original recordings from the 80's. In those days mastering was a mystery to me. No matter how perfect I made my mixes it never sounded punchy, loud and clear like those cassette recordings released by the major labels. It drove me nuts. Until today I amaze myself at how well my mixes were planned and rendered. It was only the mastering aspect that was missing to have my musical visions materialized. ---

Regards,

[brandy]

Originally Posted by syra

I would say I master 70% of what I mix. There is always at least a 1-2 week break in between mixing and mastering to clear my head from that specific project. The reason I do it is because I can get exactly the results I want w/o the hassle of involving someone else. Of course having said that, there are specific ME's I'll use for their sound in particular projects. And finally its the stuff you don't have a choice on.

Same here!

- The reason I do it is because I can get exactly the results I want

Often it is a Budget thing as well - I do a lot of Indie-Stuff here...

BUT: It is way (!!) harder to master the own stuff.. When I did bigger projects - lets say 4 weeks of recording, one week of mixing - I usually take a 1-2 weeks break till I do the mastering. And I usually rework the mastering a couple of times because I am hard to please...

It IS more easy to let someone other master. Just send the stuff over when the mix is done... Wait, listen, maybe request a change/discuss, done.

If I master my own stuff I often go back in the mix because I step over things during mastering which are not perfect at that point.

Brandy

[taturana]

I master a lot of my stuff...

this week i had the pleasure of having some of my songs mastered by a great engineer at another studio.

it's great... they came back sounding great...

And I really enjoyed it.

there's only so much we can mess up a song...

if you are tracking and mixing let someone else master it... it's worth it.

just for the balance you get from a different approach.

[iangomes]

It must be tough in the electronic music scene... You make a track, get it mastered, release it.
Then you want to do an edit to play live (which djs often do many times), you'd have to get it mastered again... f***! I think that's why most djs master their own stuff (at least that's my impression).

[djwaudio]

Depends upon your need for control. There was a period when I was really getting going with mastering and was still into recording and mixing. So, I would bring projects to other mastering engineers, because I was too close to it on a lot of levels.

This was often difficult to do, for me, because I had a lot of preconceived ideas about how it should be mastered (tube this, boost that, etc.). While those ideas were important to me at the time, there was far greater value in an expert's (M.E.'s) unbiased impressions.

It is a leap of faith sometimes to let the mastering go after spending all that time recording. I finally had to stop going because I would pace around the mastering rooms furrowing my brow. In the end they always did a great job, and most importantly the bands liked the results.

If one plays, records, mixes, and masters and it comes out well, I think that's amazing and admirable.

At this stage in life, I am more into gathering support, when needed. It's a great feeling to entrust a skilled and talented mastering engineer with your mixes... even better when they exceed expectations.

Since I'm the mastering engineer these days, I like to think that I can at least relate to both approaches.

[brian_delizza]

I'm getting ready to do my first releases and I have pretty much decided to seek out a ME for these. It is several different collaborations, but I have done pretty much all of the composing/recording/mixing myself, so I think I just need that outside perspective on everything.

I guess now I need to find a mastering engineer....

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by iangomes

It must be tough in the electronic music scene... You make a track, get it mastered, release it.
Then you want to do an edit to play live (which djs often do many times), you'd have to get it mastered again... f***! I think that's why most djs master their own stuff (at least that's my impression).

What I do with electronic artists is to master the track as a single, then run the separate audio files (stems) though the same gear for live use. They are generally ableton sessions for live use.

IMO mastering is essential for electronic music. The difference between home mastering and professional mastering on a club system in night and day, and I would say the biggest difference is proper equalisation and tube compression. It just has more RMS power and holds together. Also, the midrange can cut though without sounding harsh- one of the benefits of using a decent equaliser.

Many DJs that I work with are certainly not rich, but can hear the difference on a big system, so they get tracks mastered before a big show even if they are not being released. In this way if someone approaches them for a deal the tracks are ready to go. I also find that their mixes improve over time, so it's a win win situation.

[iangomes]

sounds expensive :S, especially if you make a track, master it, play it out, and decide part of it needs a small change lol. I bet that happens a lot

[Chris Luzz]

Originally Posted by iangomes

sounds expensive :S, especially if you make a track, master it, play it out, and decide part of it needs a small change lol. I bet that happens a lot

That's why you listen to it thousands of times and make sure you like it 95%-99.5%. I'm usually at that stage and sometimes you just need to give it up. A mix will never be 100% to your liking.

[Ben F]

I might add, there is no reason you should not be able to master your own mixes if you are an experienced engineer and know your room. I had a mix in today that sounded very good, and it was already mastered by the composer...it's how he wanted it to sound.

[Osse_87]

I mix and master in the same project, in the same room, and i'm very pleased with the results so far.

I actually don't understand the development with different tracking engineerers, mixing engineerers and mastering engineerers. If you know how audio works, and know how to apply your tools to creat what you want, you can handle the whole process from tracking to release.

my 0.02$

[kjg]

Originally Posted by Osse_87

If you know how audio works, and know how to apply your tools to creat what you want, you can handle the whole process from tracking to release.

Sure, you could handle each different job in the process. If you should is something else though.

I can handle tracking. But I am not a specialist, and I don't really enjoy it. So I don't track if I don't have to. I get better results PLUS I am completely fresh to the material when I start mixing which is a very good thing.

And I can handle mastering, but one of the most important reasons to have a mix mastered in the first place is to have an objective professional listen to the mix with fresh ears, in a different room, through different speakers. I don't have any of these things - I just mixed the damn thing.

So, I only track if I have to: a specialist can do a better job. And I try to get someone else to master when I mixed.

I know how to apply my tools to create what I want, but I also know when to rely on others - for their specialism and/or objectivity - to get the results I want.

Combine tracking and mixing if you like both. You don't necessarily have to be fresh to the material to produce a good mix. I personally prefer it, but it is no necessity. But if you mix, don't master. It defeats the purpose.

regards,
kjg

[Osse_87]

Originally Posted by kjg

Sure, you could handle each different job in the process. If you should is something else though.

I can handle tracking. But I am not a specialist, and I don't really enjoy it. So I don't track if I don't have to. I get better results PLUS I am completely fresh to the material when I start mixing which is a very good thing.

And I can handle mastering, but one of the most important reasons to have a mix mastered in the first place is to have an objective professional listen to the mix with fresh ears, in a different room, through different speakers. I don't have any of these things - I just mixed the damn thing.

So, I only track if I have to: a specialist can do a better job. And I try to get someone else to master when I mixed.

I know how to apply my tools to create what I want, but I also know when to rely on others - for their specialism and/or objectivity - to get the results I want.

Combine tracking and mixing if you like both. You don't necessarily have to be fresh to the material to produce a good mix. I personally prefer it, but it is no necessity. But if you mix, don't master. It defeats the purpose.

regards,
kjg

Yeah, I'm with you brother, and I agree.

As I'm very interested and think every step in the process is fun, it really comes naturally to try to develop in all the areas.

It's very important to listen with fresh ears to the project a LOT of times, take breaks, and get someone else to listen to it, if you handle all of the steps yourself, otherwise it's very easy to be blindfolded and loose perspective.

But I think that the mastering process is a part of the mixing process, which makes it a natural thing to combine them in the same project.

I guess we all have different ways of working, hopefully satisfied with the end result.

I'm a very perfectionist, and for me it's hard to rely on somebody else when it comes to work I'm very into myself and have sacrificed a lot of time and energy on. Some kind of control-freak maybe?

[mrlouie]

Originally Posted by Osse_87

I mix and master in the same project, in the same room, and i'm very pleased with the results so far.

I actually don't understand the development with different tracking engineerers, mixing engineerers and mastering engineerers. If you know how audio works, and know how to apply your tools to creat what you want, you can handle the whole process from tracking to release.

my 0.02$

i dont understand that if you master in the same room you mix in(same speaker setup), anything you need to fix/adjust in mastering shouldn't that have been heard/taken care of in mixing ???

why would you be hearing anything different in the same set up ?

why would you even need a separate mastering stage ? wouldnt it be better to have the mastering included as you mixed?? kinda like when someone brings in a full mix on PT ... i'd rather have him fix the problems in the mix since its all there and he can get to the exact part, instead of me working on the 2trk output to fix the stuff.

just curious about how you would hear a mix different in the same room?


louie

[bino_5150]

Originally Posted by mrlouie

just curious about how you would hear a mix different in the same room?


louie

After I've spent how ever long it took to track the song, and however many hours it took to mix the track, your ears are fatigued and your brain is used to the sound and becomes desensitised.

If I spend 3 or 4 hours on a mix, and then come in my same studio in the morning and pull the session up, I'm likely to hear something that I didn't hear before.

I master most of my own material and a lot of other peoples. Thus is the way of the independant artist.

But, once I've got my mix the way I want it, (i.e. double checked the next day, and checked on everything from my bose home theatre, to a stock car stereo, to my freakish earth-quaking multi-media system in my car, to the kids boombox, to the ipod, to the tv, etc...) I wait several days before I approach the mastering process. I don't even listen to the song during this time period.

The whole point of mastering is a fresh set of ears on a great monitoring system to polish what *should* be close to perfect already. There's no reason why it can't be you. If you're a good mixing engineer, you should have a good grasp of compression, eq, limiting, etc. Plugins and DAWs kind of bridge the gap, because now a lot of "pro style" mastering tools are available to us. If you have quality monitors and a well treated room, then hey...

Then again, if I mixed on NS-10's, I'd probably send my shit off to be mastered!

[jayfrigo]

It's a rare thing when a person can effectively change perspectives from micro to macro, and possess the multiple skill sets necessary to really excel at both mixing and mastering, especially on the same project. However, such a thing does exist.

Even if you are one of those people, trying to do both in the same room is fraught with hardship. Apart from the benefit of gaining a fresh perspective from a new monitoring environment, even if you've wisely let some time pass since mixing to let preconceptions wane, any room anomalies will likely be amplified rather than remedied if both actions take place in the same room.

But you can't just go to any new room. It needs to be a quality room with good monitoring; and it needs to be a familiar environment so that you understand translation.

All that said, if you are doing limited release indie stuff, and budget and time are limited, you sometimes need to just do whatever you can. Even if you aren't truly proficient at both disciplines, and have only one room, you do your best and can still make a good sounding record.

I don't discourage anybody from trying. The music is more important than the technical side anyways. However, if you're looking for the best results possible, be honest about your abilities, and about the ideal conditions under which the best job can be done.

[Jake 2.0]

Mastering your own record is like taking your sister to the prom...

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

It's a rare thing when a person can effectively change perspectives from micro to macro, and possess the multiple skill sets necessary to really excel at both mixing and mastering, especially on the same project. However, such a thing does exist.

Even if you are one of those people, trying to do both in the same room is fraught with hardship. Apart from the benefit of gaining a fresh perspective from a new monitoring environment, even if you've wisely let some time pass since mixing to let preconceptions wane, any room anomalies will likely be amplified rather than remedied if both actions take place in the same room.

But you can't just go to any new room. It needs to be a quality room with good monitoring; and it needs to be a familiar environment so that you understand translation.

All that said, if you are doing limited release indie stuff, and budget and time are limited, you sometimes need to just do whatever you can. Even if you aren't truly proficient at both disciplines, and have only one room, you do your best and can still make a good sounding record.

I don't discourage anybody from trying. The music is more important than the technical side anyways. However, if you're looking for the best results possible, be honest about your abilities, and about the ideal conditions under which the best job can be done.

This should be a sticky~!

[-Noodles-]

My own work - yeah, I'll master it.

Anyone else's I am very wary of it, and will try and get it mastered by someone who knows what they're doing.

I'm not bad at mastering - but I try not to master recordings / mixes that I've done. I don't think there's a point to that, since I'm already attached and I may miss elements which the other guy might not.

So yeah,.. my own stuff i'll practice on, and at my uni I'm currently doing a mastering course .. but I'll stick by sending it off until the day I die.