Mastering (how much can an engineer really do)

I have used some high end outboard but never fiddled around with a mastering "board"

What can be done to add harmonics?

What can be done to increase Clarity?

What pieces of gear are used here?

I know it's up to an engineer's talent, but having good tools in the tool box never hurt anyone.

I guess what I'm asking is there anything that actually does for instance what an spl vitalizer was marketed as?

come one I know someone has ideas

[MASSIVE Master]

Maybe you could rephrase this a little... Are you just trying to find out if Vitalizers/Sonic Maxmizers/Aural Exciters are worth having?

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

I have used some high end outboard but never fiddled around with a mastering "board"


I guess what I'm asking is there anything that actually does for instance what an spl vitalizer was marketed as?

"The Tube Vitalizer is a fantastic tool for old tapes," Bob (Ludwig) explains. "It has saved me on several re-issue projects."

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

Maybe you could rephrase this a little... Are you just trying to find out if Vitalizers/Sonic Maxmizers/Aural Exciters are worth having?

No I'm not asking totally about vitalizers etc... I'm asking if maybe there are some pieces that mastering guys reach for that I'm not aware of

[crna59]

Well if I just can't seem to be satisfied with something I've worked on through my "normal" chain, I break out a couple of specialty pieces that have interesting tools. These are The Mastering TC 6000, Weiss DNA and EQ1 M/S option.

Regards

[pingu]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

I have used some high end outboard but never fiddled around with a mastering "board"

What can be done to add harmonics?

What can be done to increase Clarity?

What pieces of gear are used here?

I know it's up to an engineer's talent, but having good tools in the tool box never hurt anyone.

I guess what I'm asking is there anything that actually does for instance what an spl vitalizer was marketed as?

The less an ME needs to do to a song the better the song is and will be.

Pingu I agree, but still I'd like to know if there are pieces I'm not aware of.

[Bob Olhsson]

Mastering is all about tweaking the final presentation of a mix to fit the context of the album, the genre and the marketplace. Often it's simply correcting unintended timbrel coloration caused by particular monitors and equalizers. The main tool is monitoring that is good enough to tell when to leave it alone or to hear which gear to use and what settings help more than they hurt.

The job doesn't provide much ego gratification because the very best sessions consist of fine-tuning the relative levels of the tracks and shaking the mixer's hand for making a beautiful record. Most sessions involve a few carefully chosen broad strokes that pop each mix into focus.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Pingu I agree, but still I'd like to know if there are pieces I'm not aware of.

The gear is but one cog in the wheel, but seeing that this is "gearslutz," I guess we'll have to forgive your gear fixation. The first thing is the room and the monitors. You can't fix it if you can't hear it. Secondly, if you need to do all sorts of audio gymnastics, you're dealing with a flawed mix and all your energy will go into minimizing the weaknesses rather than emphasizing the strengths.

If you must know of some mastering gear manufacturers that are less common outside of the mastering arena, check out these names: Weiss, Maselec (includng a couple Prism badged items), Sintefex, and Crookwood. A little older and less common, but still used are Sontec and Juenger. Some manufacturers that you definitely have heard of that offer popular mastering specific pieces among their lineups include Manley, Massenburg (GML), and t.c. electronic. Some others to look at include Z-Systems, Avalon, SPL, Millennia, Forssell, and Cranesong.

The more popular mastering DAWs include Sonic Solutions (more recently spun off into Sonic Studio), Sadie, Sequoia, and Pyramix. Cube Tech seems to making some headway the past year or two also, especially in restoration. Sonic's NoNoise and the offerings from Cedar are the other restoration systems commonly found in mastering studios that perform the service. For converters, Lavry, Prism, and dcs are usually at the top, with Mytek and Benchmark next in line, and Apogee still around, but not nearly so common in mastering anymore. Pacific Microsonics (the HDCD originators) was one of the very top brands before Microsoft bought them and stopped marketing the converters. Many are still in use.

This is not an exhaustive list, just a sampling of popular mastering gear that happened to come to mind at the moment. Don't be upset if I missed your favorite piece; just add it to the thread.

[BROKNEK]

Anyone need one of these...I have one here with a few other interfaces

(231) 929 1386 x222
Benjamin

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Mastering is all about tweaking the final presentation of a mix to fit the context of the album, the genre and the marketplace. Often it's simply correcting unintended timbrel coloration caused by particular monitors and equalizers. The main tool is monitoring that is good enough to tell when to leave it alone or to hear which gear to use and what settings help more than they hurt.

The job doesn't provide much ego gratification because the very best sessions consist of fine-tuning the relative levels of the tracks and shaking the mixer's hand for making a beautiful record. Most sessions involve a few carefully chosen broad strokes that pop each mix into focus.

A great explanation of what goes on, Bob.

I think a lot of folks have a bit of a "fairy dust" mystification thing going on with regard to what a good ME does.

Then, again, I've seen a little twinkle of magic once or twice in the process.

Still... the whole process was a lot more impressive when there were cutting lathes involved... it's kind of cool watching a real time process where slip ups get expensive, fast. That's when ME's not only had golden ears and lighting quick fingers but nerves of steel and eagle eyes... heroic figures, really, waging their lonely battle against... aw, never mind.

[Kiwiburger]

IMO, a mix engineer shouldn't apply anything over the 2-buss at all. Not even a limiter. Why should you? You have access to all tracks - if you identify a problem, fix it in the mix. If the low end is too boomey - why eq the whole mix? Why not identify if it's the kick or the bass, and make the appropriate moves.

You need to leave headroom for the mastering guy - so why smash everything up againt 0dB with a limiter.

Why do anything over the 2-buss that may have to be 'undone' by the mastering guy. Generally, they have superior eq's and compressors. I'd rather that they didn't have to use them at all, than to be using them in 'salvage' mode.

I'm a fan of using Harbal as a check of spectral balance, but I don't use the eq. If it identifies a problem, I go back to the mix.

Self mastering is a seperate issue - but you would only do this after you have created your un-tampered with safe mix file. Then any self mastering you do can be used for demos or as a guide to the mastering engineer of what you think is acceptable.

But for self mastering, especially in the same room with the same monitors, you have to appreciate that you are slightly doomed. Harbal or other spectrum analysers can give a useful second opinion. I think self mastering should simply be compression and limiting to make it loud. Any re-eq'ing is simply admitting to yourself that you got the mix wrong. Why not fix the mix. Any M/S is just admitting you mixed the reverbs or panning wrong - why not fix it in the mix.

Just my 2c.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

IMO, a mix engineer shouldn't apply anything over the 2-buss at all.

I have to disagree with this idea. The mix determines the presentation of the music and the performance. Overall eq. or a touch of fast release compression glue are both very effective mixing effects that shouldn't be left for later. It's important that a mix sound as great as you can make it in just as many places as you have time to listen in BEFORE taking it to mastering.

[ShamansDream]

Is a mixing engineer a mastering engineer to be?

I think the drift of this thread is that the mix engineer should do everything to make a great sounding mix. Full of dynamics, well balanced and the life your client expect from your efforts.

Then the mastering engineer offers three primary services:
1. A fresh set of ears.
2. A great mastering environment.
3. The final polish to what the mix engineer provides.

The sky is the limit for a mix engineer. You can upgrade yourself to the point of having the mastering tools and environment.

You will likely find that doing both isn't worth it except for budget productions (if you want your name associated in this way).

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by ShamansDream

You can upgrade yourself to the point of having the mastering tools and environment.

.

This should always be the case.


I never understood why the recording studios monitoring setups weren't as good as the mastering studios.


Its like the mentality lets wait till we get to the mastering studio to really hear the flaws and incosistencies.


If there is any place you need to hear flaws and colorations its in the recording and mixing process.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

I never understood why the recording studios monitoring setups weren't as good as the mastering studios.

People stopped using "big speakers" during the era of radical monitor eq. Many didn't realize the problem was not the speakers but the fact that they had been screwed up by the eq.

Back in the '60s and '70s every engineer I knew had an audiophile-quality setup at home where we checked out our mixes in addition to having really revealing "mains" at the studio.

[lofi]

for years ive been listening mastering mumbo-jumbo like this:

- mastering is "final magic touch" you need special set of ears for it
- mastering compensates for bad studio monitoring
- it is best that mastering eng does nothing - thats great mix

thats cool with me.... so to be ME you gotta have superb monitoring and gear (of course), know your job and tools (of course).

but...

- leave masterbus comp and/or eq to ME. why ??!? its a mixing decision ! if you change masterbus comp settings it shure will change my snare sound !
- give stems or different mixes..vox up, drums up, gtrs up and so on... why ??? stem mastering (im not talking surround here) is MIXING !
- you need fresh set of ears. why ?!?!? maybe you mean "fresh (better) monitoring setup" or maybe you simply dont know what you want !

that goes against my logic...

oh yeah... another thing... loudnes wars... we are all gonna get killed...its gotta stop...

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by lofi

..- give stems or different mixes..vox up, drums up, gtrs up and so on... why ??? stem mastering (im not talking surround here) is MIXING !...

Granted these techniques can easily be misused.

On the other hand a mix can sound great all by its self but a vocal that's slightly (a half dB) too low or too high can make the song sound wimpy when played immediately after the preceding song on the album. In many cases people haven't even a clue what the final sequence is going to be at the mix session so the only way to cover this is with alternate mixes that are equally good but a tiny bit different. Stems is another solution.

Another situation is when the producer decides they want heavy compression applied in mastering after-the-fact. Being able to splice between takes with different vocal levels can make all the difference in the world to how the song maintains excitement.

Mastering is all about tweaking the sound to make each mix sound its very best within the context of both the same album and the other recordings on the market it's competing with for attention. In an ideal world every mixer would know exactly how each mix was going to be presented and mastering would be less important. Unfortunately there isn't usually enough information available at the time of the mix to fine-tune each for context.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I have to disagree with this idea. The mix determines the presentation of the music and the performance. Overall eq. or a touch of fast release compression glue are both very effective mixing effects that shouldn't be left for later. It's important that a mix sound as great as you can make it in just as many places as you have time to listen in BEFORE taking it to mastering.

Well put Bob (of course).

A lot of people believe that if your strap a comp on the 2 buss, that your doing guerilla mastering. It's quite different. A comp on the 2 buss can change quite a bit about a mix, and that's what the mix engineer does, get's the mix sounding right. EQ and comp on the 2 buss can play a vital roll in that process, especially in hard rock music. Mastering is then the topping on the cake.

[MASSIVE Master]

I use buss compression regularly during mixing (on the rare occasion that I mix anything anymore). I draw the line where I'm using compression for the sake of volume.

[JDN]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

IMO, a mix engineer shouldn't apply anything over the 2-buss at all. Not even a limiter. Why should you?

I TOTALLY Disagree with this. I used to feel the same way, but as a Mixing Engineer, I've found these days people want such extreme liminting and multiband compression when it's mastered that it's better for me to add most of that while I mix. Don't hate, my point is that we squash it so much these days I NEED to account for that when mixing. When I get my mix "close" I definitely begin monitoring with a multiband limiter and making adjustments. I've even found these days I PRINT, yes, I do PRINT with these. If I can get it as close as I want it to be, I'm gonna do it.

A great example of this is at the end of the mix when I bypass the multi-band limiter, I seem to have WAY to much Kick and Snare. If I wasn't monitoring AND printing through this, when the mastering engineer mastered the song if they were to achieve any serious contemporary volume, the kick and snare would dissapear. Call me a control freak, but I'd rather give the mastering engineer somthing that I thought was as close as I wanted it to be. That being said, I ALWAYS error on the side of too little multi band limiting across that main mix buss cause the mastering engineer will obviously do more, even if it's just a little.

[Nordenstam]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

I never understood why the recording studios monitoring setups weren't as good as the mastering studios.

The acoustics is the big issue. Think it's really hard, if not impossible, to make a recording studio control room as good as a mastering room. A mix room is designed for working ergonomics. Having all that gear in a room is an acoustic nightmare!


Andreas

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Mastering is all about tweaking the final presentation of a mix to fit the context of the album, the genre and the marketplace. Often it's simply correcting unintended timbrel coloration caused by particular monitors and equalizers. The main tool is monitoring that is good enough to tell when to leave it alone or to hear which gear to use and what settings help more than they hurt.

The job doesn't provide much ego gratification because the very best sessions consist of fine-tuning the relative levels of the tracks and shaking the mixer's hand for making a beautiful record. Most sessions involve a few carefully chosen broad strokes that pop each mix into focus.

Bob O is right. But listening to a great engineer's mix while cutting, even though realized as a master with the least bit of touching by me is a great treat. And knowing that I was able to take an "A" mix and help it become an "A+" gives me a thrill!

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by JDN

I TOTALLY Disagree with this. I used to feel the same way, but as a Mixing Engineer, I've found these days people want such extreme liminting and multiband compression when it's mastered that it's better for me to add most of that while I mix. Don't hate, my point is that we squash it so much these days I NEED to account for that when mixing. When I get my mix "close" I definitely begin monitoring with a multiband limiter and making adjustments. I've even found these days I PRINT, yes, I do PRINT with these. If I can get it as close as I want it to be, I'm gonna do it.

A great example of this is at the end of the mix when I bypass the multi-band limiter, I seem to have WAY to much Kick and Snare. If I wasn't monitoring AND printing through this, when the mastering engineer mastered the song if they were to achieve any serious contemporary volume, the kick and snare would dissapear. Call me a control freak, but I'd rather give the mastering engineer somthing that I thought was as close as I wanted it to be. That being said, I ALWAYS error on the side of too little multi band limiting across that main mix buss cause the mastering engineer will obviously do more, even if it's just a little.

Dear JDN: Yes, it's true, if you are making recordings that are going to be greatly altered in level, then their very mix will change in the mastering, the snare will get tucked in and that affects the vocal level and such. But what kind of a business is this? Where the mastering engineer changes the intent of the mix (assuming the mix sounds good)? This is nonsense. And we've got to change it. It never used to be that. It used to be that a mix engineer made a great sounding mix, and the masteirng engineer didn't ruin it. That's the philosophy.

Regardless, let's try to change this imperfect world. I would like to humbly suggest that you make two mixes, one with all the buss processing you care to make (but please skip the peak limiter, and I can explain why in another thread), and one without. You may have to change your mix entirely to accomodate, and mix engineers don't have the time to do this, but in a perfect world, that's what I'd advise. But if you are making music that's designed to have lasting value, not go off the charts after a week, then you owe it to posterity to make that "audiophile mix". Hey, maybe even release it after 20 years!

Or better yet, be daring, and get the artist, record company and yourself to agree that this smashing and crushing business is ruining sound and get everyone, including the mastering engineeer to BACK OFF.

It can be done. Check out Daddy Yankee's hit "Gasolina" in the Regaeton field. It's dynamic, impacting, HOT enough, has tight bass, sounds good on the radio, and it's on the top of the Billboard charts and crossing over.

BK

[JDN]

Believe me Bob, we're on the same page. I definitely hear you, but as you know, these labels want it squashed and loud and distorted and at the end of the day, they are the client. Most of what i work on is hip-hop/pop/r&b so it's just the nature of the game.

FYI, I usually give the mastering engineer the main version with and without the limiting. If it's a mastering engineer I know or at least a major label, I usually print the rest of the versions without the limiter. If it's going to some low budget no name person(who may or may not be great), I usually give them everything else with the limiters. I also do not print my stems with the limiters.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Pacific Microsonics (the HDCD originators) was one of the very top brands before Microsoft bought them and stopped marketing the converters. Many are still in use.

To clarify ... it was a supply issue with the large analog parts, the fact that some key parts were being discontinued that led to the demise of this unit. They could still be sold today IMO as they were built by ear to be indistinguishable up to -6dbfs from an analog tape source. (The last 6db has the encoding sound to it, a very subtle tube sound.)

The unit is 3U x 20" deep and has a large outboard PSU and 20 pin. It's a monster.

The decision was made to service current users vs. sell out all the old parts stock. And as the new units were in the $15,000+ range new, that was a great move, that made many high end places thankful. I was lucky to get in on a used one, after they ran out of parts. Bob Ludwig and Sony are still using theirs the last I knew.

[paterno]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I would like to humbly suggest that you make two mixes, one with all the buss processing you care to make (but please skip the peak limiter, and I can explain why in another thread), and one without. You may have to change your mix entirely to accomodate, and mix engineers don't have the time to do this, but in a perfect world, that's what I'd advise. But if you are making music that's designed to have lasting value, not go off the charts after a week, then you owe it to posterity to make that "audiophile mix". Hey, maybe even release it after 20 years!

Or better yet, be daring, and get the artist, record company and yourself to agree that this smashing and crushing business is ruining sound and get everyone, including the mastering engineeer to BACK OFF.

BK

If you are going to do two, why not three, and then stems as well???? And print one to tape. To Masterlink. To SACD. To cassette. Why not spend 3 days mixing something that you would mix in a day? Sure, there's a budget for it. Or you can just let the mastering engineer mix it!

The last thing I want to do as the creator of a mix is to spend my time getting something I'm happy with [and the artist is happy with!], and then undoing/redoing it for 'posterity'. Hasn't posterity done just fine with a lot of 'technical problems' in recorded music of the past? As we have seen with all the 5.1 remixes of old records, and just plain remixes of old records, there is something seriously missing in the spirit of these things, even if the technology is better.

Recorded music, by definition, is a document -- an audio document. It is a document created and completed, most of the time, in a relatively short time frame. It is a document of the artist's life during that time. Whether or not it has value depends on a lot of things. The 'charts' have nothing to do with it.

The only thing owed to anyone is your best effort to help the artist achieve what they are after while you are working on their project. If that means distortion and clipping and fuzz, then that's what is required. Being daring has nothing to do with it.

Cheers,
John

[pingu]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Dear JDN: Yes, it's true, if you are making recordings that are going to be greatly altered in level, then their very mix will change in the mastering, the snare will get tucked in and that affects the vocal level and such. But what kind of a business is this? Where the mastering engineer changes the intent of the mix (assuming the mix sounds good)? This is nonsense. And we've got to change it. It never used to be that. It used to be that a mix engineer made a great sounding mix, and the masteirng engineer didn't ruin it. That's the philosophy.

Regardless, let's try to change this imperfect world. I would like to humbly suggest that you make two mixes, one with all the buss processing you care to make (but please skip the peak limiter, and I can explain why in another thread), and one without. You may have to change your mix entirely to accomodate, and mix engineers don't have the time to do this, but in a perfect world, that's what I'd advise. But if you are making music that's designed to have lasting value, not go off the charts after a week, then you owe it to posterity to make that "audiophile mix". Hey, maybe even release it after 20 years!

Or better yet, be daring, and get the artist, record company and yourself to agree that this smashing and crushing business is ruining sound and get everyone, including the mastering engineeer to BACK OFF.

It can be done. Check out Daddy Yankee's hit "Gasolina" in the Regaeton field. It's dynamic, impacting, HOT enough, has tight bass, sounds good on the radio, and it's on the top of the Billboard charts and crossing over.

BK

As always Bob you make a great point.



The more i fiddle with mastering the more i realise that mastering should stay as close to the mix as possible, basically tweaking out excessive frequencies and sometimes light compression.
To remain as pure to the mix as possible i see no reason why the master should be louder than the mixdown.

Once the spectrum is balanced the rms levels go up.
a little light compression and the rms levels go up again.
Why apply make up gain for the sake of volume it only adds another process which is taking the song downhill.

[pingu]

Originally Posted by paterno

If you are going to do two, why not three, and then stems as well???? And print one to tape. To Masterlink. To SACD. To cassette. Why not spend 3 days mixing something that you would mix in a day? Sure, there's a budget for it. Or you can just let the mastering engineer mix it!

The last thing I want to do as the creator of a mix is to spend my time getting something I'm happy with [and the artist is happy with!], and then undoing/redoing it for 'posterity'. Hasn't posterity done just fine with a lot of 'technical problems' in recorded music of the past? As we have seen with all the 5.1 remixes of old records, and just plain remixes of old records, there is something seriously missing in the spirit of these things, even if the technology is better.

Recorded music, by definition, is a document -- an audio document. It is a document created and completed, most of the time, in a relatively short time frame. It is a document of the artist's life during that time. Whether or not it has value depends on a lot of things. The 'charts' have nothing to do with it.

The only thing owed to anyone is your best effort to help the artist achieve what they are after while you are working on their project. If that means distortion and clipping and fuzz, then that's what is required. Being daring has nothing to do with it.

Cheers,
John

Yes fair enough give them what they want.

But when giving them what they want which most of the time is that compressed crap is 3 times faster than showing them an alternative.

The alternative being an unslammed dynamic healthy breathing tune.

Create 2 mixes, one slammed and one healthy, mixdown and then compare them at the same apparent listening level.

Which one will they choose.