Mastering A Project (E.P.) VS. Mastering Per Song

[The Greening]

Hey all, we've recently recorded a batch of songs, and are planning to first release an EP and later a full length.

My question is: is the process of mastering a project significantly different from mastering on a per song basis? As in, if we did it just per song, would having sequencing experience in CD Architect and a decent listening room take care of everything else?

We'd be mastering four songs for the EP, and later seven songs for the album (of which will contain some of the songs on the EP). Would we be in a position where we'd have to remaster the EP songs to be on the album (thus paying twice for the same song)?


Thanks,
Will

[ed littman]

I think if the ME knows this upfront they may capture the processes files at 24bit & at conservative levels. Then when dithering to 16 bit for the EP via physical master or Internet files just adjust the level by clipping or limiter, or both. When the other songs come in for the full album the same process would be used & added to the original. Doing it this way will allow for easy song re-ordering & no required song re do's.
The main difference between having all of the songs ready at one time & one at a time is final loudness level processing on input.

Ed

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by The Greening

Hey all, we've recently recorded a batch of songs, and are planning to first release an EP and later a full length.

My question is: <snip> if we did it just per song, would having sequencing experience in CD Architect and a decent listening room take care of everything else?

In my experience, no. It's all about context of the songs together.

Originally Posted by The Greening

We'd be mastering four songs for the EP, and later seven songs for the album (of which will contain some of the songs on the EP). Would we be in a position where we'd have to remaster the EP songs to be on the album (thus paying twice for the same song)?

I might master a promo single, and at a later date that's no guarantee it will (or won't) need remastering from scratch in context with the other tracks and a reference sound or dynamics to suit all. Ideally, yes minimal EQ & level matching would be all that's required but there can be a lot more involved - sonically - than that, especially if the mixes were done over a reasonably long period of time.

Similarly, if mastering an album I certainly won't dive headlong into track 1 at the exclusion of hearing where the project is heading overall. And often track 1, as a result, may not be the first to be worked on.

But as a final, general remark: if you're not pushed for time or deadlines it just makes so much sense to give yourselves time to live with the mixes. Get them all completed. It can make such a huge beneficial difference. Resist the urge to get them out there (myspace or whatever) in an incomplete form, and submit them for mastering all together. And you'll likely save some money in mastering, too... by having them mastered in context but also potentially avoiding last minute mix revisions for subjective reasons.

[MASSIVE Master]

The main difference between having all of the songs ready at one time & one at a time is final loudness level processing on input.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Ed, but (IMO) it's more than that. I personally prefer to work from all the files, in the correct order. If it's a digital source, it's not unusual to line 'em all up before even starting to process them. Does a lot for the flow.

The point is to do what's best for the individual track, of course - But what's best for the track might adjust for what's best for the project holistically.

[It'sJoeAgain]

Originally Posted by The Greening

......My question is: is the process of mastering a project significantly different from mastering on a per song basis? (snip).....We'd be mastering four songs for the EP, and later seven songs for the album (of which will contain some of the songs on the EP). Would we be in a position where we'd have to remaster the EP songs to be on the album (thus paying twice for the same song)?

i don't see a problem at our end...now i don' do the masterin but i know the ME i work with can do this w/no problem as each mix is cataloged and can be recalled from a server that has X amounts of terabytes so it doesn't matter how long it takes a client to come back with more mixes to complete an EP or an album, the ME knows exactly what to do next with the new mix(es) so u don't pay extra. The only problem that there could be is if the new mixes aren't as good, then i guess comes the question.... do u master for consistency (the coherence) or for the optimum sound of each individual mix??...

Have a good fourth u friggin' American slutz.....thumbsup

[Joe_caithness]

Hi, I offer two services basically.

Single tracks for DJ play, single MP3 releases, just for demo purposes etc. are charged per track as they are not a "compiled release" so to speak.

If someone comes to me with a bunch of tracks they want to put on a CD together there is a matter of tonal control, dynamics and the emotion of how the track list flows etc which takes a lot more time and consideration. This is charged on an hourly basis, agreed by me and the artist/label, depending on the project (an experimental indie rock album will take a lot longer than a 10 track hardcore punk ep!).

I would strongly consider getting the entire release mastered as a single booked session(s) by the same ME in the same studio.

If you can't afford that atleast spend some time picking the perfect ME for the job and going back to him, using the first session as a master, when compiling the album.

does that help?

Joe @ Subsequent Mastering

[ed littman]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Ed, but (IMO) it's more than that. I personally prefer to work from all the files, in the correct order. If it's a digital source, it's not unusual to line 'em all up before even starting to process them. Does a lot for the flow.

The point is to do what's best for the individual track, of course - But what's best for the track might adjust for what's best for the project holistically.

I agree with you & Adam 100%. Just saying if that's the way it is with no option.

If all the mixes are ready & together, I usually start with the most aggressive or problematic song first. I usually do all my processing on input that includes final loudness level.With my setup I can both a/b the original mix & the processed along with processed & the final EDL, so yes context is key.

So, if I master an ep first I'll just approach it differently so i can have more flexibility when later mixes roll in. not my preferred way but it happens.
Ed

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by ed littman

I think if the ME knows this upfront they may capture the processes files at 24bit & at conservative levels.

.

Originally Posted by ed littman

if I master an ep first I'll just approach it differently so i can have more flexibility when later mixes roll in.

I think this is a good way to approach the situation... leaving the door open for flexibility / touch up / tweaking, down the line, if needed.

I'm not big on mastering an album in sequential order, I'll work more in groups of songs that share sonic characteristic's...but shooting for target continuity.

[lerone]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Ed, but (IMO) it's more than that. I personally prefer to work from all the files, in the correct order. If it's a digital source, it's not unusual to line 'em all up before even starting to process them. Does a lot for the flow.

The point is to do what's best for the individual track, of course - But what's best for the track might adjust for what's best for the project holistically.

Yep totally. With a single song, there are quite a few directions that one could go down with regards to processing, however, with an e.p or l.p, its all about finding a common ground between ALL of the tracks in order to create a more uniform listening experience for the listener. So yes, two completely different kettles of fish there.