Professional thickness

[backstreets]

Despite the critics... I've always liked the music Bon Jovi puts out. Flame on if you want.. it's just my personal preference

I was listen to their new single the other day, "We Weren't Born to Follow".

I like the dense sound the mix has and the mastering on it isn't all about exaggerated highs either, it's fat and full sounding with a snare sound that I just love (yes, it still competes in the loudness war which is sad...)

I've mostly mastered unsigned and demo stuff so far...

The fatness and width that is present in this particular track... were does it really come from? You PROS who work with professional mixes like this, how much of this thickness yet wide soundscape actually comes from the mix and how much is achieved in the mastering stage.

So far when receiving a "warm" sounding mix from someone, it often becomes muddy without enough clarity when compressing and limiting. Or it's hard to get it wide yet retaining enough punch in it.

Kind of an question without any real answer to it I know, but your thoughts would be nice to hear

[Virtalahde]

I do a lot of warm sounding stuff and my customers seem to come back because I don't boost the highs that much. I've found my balance with the highs.

Typically, the mixes are just fine and it's pretty rare I actually compress things more than, say, 0,5dB. Usually see the needles just arely moving. So it's all bout the EQ, and I find myself balancing the high mids/highs a lot. Everything affects everything. A bright sounding master might be bright simply because the 7-10kHz range is hyped up.

To actually answer the question, then yes - the sound is pretty much in the mix. The more you need to turn it up, the more you need to take care of not making it too bright or to deviate from the original balance too much.

[PatrikT]

A dense sounding track comes from a mix where, say, 80-800 Hz is laid out well.

A wide sounding track comes from a mix where, say, 80-800 Hz is laid out well as well.

A final great sound requires very little from mastering. If only people could realize that.


Best Regards
Patrik

[Virtalahde]

Oh, tip of the day:

The monitoring & the room are obviously the most important things, but an equally important thing is the monitoring volume. I used to monitor pretty loud, and it made me do darker masters. These days I generally listen at a pretty low levels, which just makes me do better decisions - especially in the high end.

[Franco]

^^The DAC is pretty darn important too, and as far as volume, one should know what output the speakers they're using are rated to best perform at, in addition to making that decision based on the room they're listening to, but yeah, that's good advice.

I've seen MANY pictures of mastering rooms where the speakers look suspiciously too big for the room and too close to the rear and side walls, to which the answer may be "more treatment". However, if you have speakers suited for the room and spaced in a way that lets them perform optimally, the amount of treatment needed may be minimal (taking into account how loud you playback).

[OMNIFEX]

Originally Posted by Franco

I've seen MANY pictures of mastering rooms where the speakers look suspiciously too big for the room and too close to the rear and side walls, to which the answer may be "more treatment". However, if you have speakers suited for the room and spaced in a way that lets them perform optimally, the amount of treatment needed may be minimal (taking into account how loud you playback).

Large speakers will give you answers smaller speakers cannot. Especially within the 70 - 280 Hertz range. A lot of small monitor speakers tend to have difficulty around those frequencies and bring forth a lot of build up that the user may assume is the track when it is harmonic distortion from the loudspeakers.

If you are familiar with frequencies, a spectrum analyser will help you determine if the “density” as backstreets stated is enough or lacking in the mix.

Cheers!

[Everbeatz]

The actual "warm and fat sounding" something is pretty hard to define precisely, but I personally consider it's lowmids area which is mixed to sound tight and well balanced. That part of spectrum is mostly filled with bass as dominant.

I think it has to be done properly in mixing stage, but it surely can be enhanced in mastering.

[soundgeezer]

wasn't Bon Jovi mastered at sterling by george marino ?
He certainly does imply his own sound with his equipment if you compare the albums he mastered to each other (3 doors down, AC/DC etc).

But I agree that most of the sound comes from mixing though

[masterizer]

Originally Posted by soundgeezer

wasn't Bon Jovi mastered at sterling by george marino ?
He certainly does imply his own sound with his equipment if you compare the albums he mastered to each other (3 doors down, AC/DC etc).

But I agree that most of the sound comes from mixing though

Its created in tracking and mixing, its difficult sometimes impossible to add something thats not already there in mixing and mastering. It can be done to some extent with the right gear and technique but shouldn't be left to mastering. George does some nice work, the signature sound is most likely due to the way it was mixed and not mastered.

[backstreets]

Thanks for your thoughts and inputs!

You kinda confirmed what I was thinking about it myself... a thick nice sounding track is done in the mixing stage.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by backstreets

.. a thick nice sounding track is done in the mixing stage.

... and a big portion in tracking