skipping the mastering stage?

[da goose]

If after the mastering it lost detail, dimension and dynamics something went wrong. You probably didn't tell your mastering engineer what you wanted or you didn't tell him after you got the masters back that you didn't like the mastering.
I know for sure that if you told the engineer (when at least he is a pro) that you didn't like the mastering that he could do a revision for you.

In other words, i think it has more to with communication with your engineer than the actual mastering itself.

[sidamosae.be]

Originally Posted by hollo321

hi ive come across this idea and now starting to take it seriously since my last track i sent for mastering. What do you guys think of instead of getting something mastered, just use mastering hardware on individual tracks? first of all i know nothing about mastering but cant help my ears. On my last track i used really high quality hardware-manley eq, doc fear, tape machine,neve.. and applyed to each track where i felt needed it and left some tracks that didnt need processing alone, and in the end ended up with a beautiful open multidimentional mix: entrance into existance(Metamorphosis - ReverbNation)
and thought it could b myb further improved by mastering, sent to high end mastering engineer and it now lost some of its dynamic,detail and dimension, liek from 3d to 2d. So thinking maybe it shouldnt be touched by mastering at all and leave mix as is n start using this technique from now on, what you guys think?
cheers

Treating individual tracks with proper tools (dedicated for mastering or not) isn't a new technique, it's called mixing, which is far too often skipped before the mastering stage.

[hollo321]

Originally Posted by sidamosae.be

Treating individual tracks with proper tools (dedicated for mastering or not) isn't a new technique, it's called mixing, which is far too often skipped before the mastering stage.

lol i hear u , yeh i requested for a remaster before, and just ruined it little less, guess just need to find a new mastering engineer than

[da goose]

Originally Posted by hollo321

lol i hear u , yeh i requested for a remaster before, and just ruined it little less, guess just need to find a new mastering engineer than

I guess so.

[Rossd25]

For my own material I now just master on the output bus. It seems pointless to bounce down to 24, open up a new session, and then master from there. Sometimes it takes tweaking the mix, which you can't do with a bounced down track.

[rogerbrain]

Originally Posted by hollo321

hi ive come across this idea and now starting to take it seriously since my last track i sent for mastering. What do you guys think of instead of getting something mastered, just use mastering hardware on individual tracks? first of all i know nothing about mastering but cant help my ears. On my last track i used really high quality hardware-manley eq, doc fear, tape machine,neve.. and applyed to each track where i felt needed it and left some tracks that didnt need processing alone, and in the end ended up with a beautiful open multidimentional mix: entrance into existance(Metamorphosis - ReverbNation)
and thought it could b myb further improved by mastering, sent to high end mastering engineer and it now lost some of its dynamic,detail and dimension, liek from 3d to 2d. So thinking maybe it shouldnt be touched by mastering at all and leave mix as is n start using this technique from now on, what you guys think?
cheers

I am not a mastering eng nor am i a mainstream musician. i have had a lot of studio exp and engineered in a 24 track studio in late 70's early 80's for about 5 years and have kept a personal studio since the mid 70's ... I have had some pro mastering done with great results and have done some myself with my good tracking gear (api, purple, portico, altec, avalon harrison) and a few mastering type plugs with very good results as well.

a couple days ago i decided to put some 24/192 files on bandcamp...just cuz I can. I was quite surprised at how good my mixes sounded with no mastering and nothing on the stereo outputs at all, AND how much I had been 'catering' to the loudness wars and the idea that my music would be listened to via iphone and buds... when i started thinking that a song may be listened to on hi end gear in a quiet place ... it changed how I envisioned the final product....a lot!! I gotta say i like the results a lot. I will still try to optimize my music for iphone and buds BUT going forward i will offer hi rez non mastered files as well.

so shoot me

[RichArien]

Originally Posted by rogerbrain

I am not a mastering eng nor am i a mainstream musician. i have had a lot of studio exp and engineered in a 24 track studio in late 70's early 80's for about 5 years and have kept a personal studio since the mid 70's ... I have had some pro mastering done with great results and have done some myself with my good tracking gear (api, purple, portico, altec, avalon harrison) and a few mastering type plugs with very good results as well.

a couple days ago i decided to put some 24/192 files on bandcamp...just cuz I can. I was quite surprised at how good my mixes sounded with no mastering and nothing on the stereo outputs at all, AND how much I had been 'catering' to the loudness wars and the idea that my music would be listened to via iphone and buds... when i started thinking that a song may be listened to on hi end gear in a quiet place ... it changed how I envisioned the final product....a lot!! I gotta say i like the results a lot. I will still try to optimize my music for iphone and buds BUT going forward i will offer hi rez non mastered files as well.

so shoot me

Well.. remember that when you record on analog mediums as you push the volumes and record hotter the medium automatically starts loosing headroom and introduces its own very subtle (and to be honest way better than electronic) compression, when I switched to digital I was shocked, I never ever used more than a little compression for some stuff, with digital I had to change my ways and somehow relearn how I was using compression.

-----------------
As for the original post.. bad mastering is sometimes worse than no mastering at all, so you may be better leaving your stuff as it is if you notice the decline in quality.

[rogerbrain]

Originally Posted by RichArien

Well.. remember that when you record on analog mediums as you push the volumes and record hotter the medium automatically starts loosing headroom and introduces its own very subtle (and to be honest way better than electronic) compression, when I switched to digital I was shocked, I never ever used more than a little compression for some stuff, with digital I had to change my ways and somehow relearn how I was using compression.

-----------------
As for the original post.. bad mastering is sometimes worse than no mastering at all, so you may be better leaving your stuff as it is if you notice the decline in quality.

yep... tape is quite a different medium from digital... back in the day I spent much time trying to lessen noise and trying to GUESS what the RIAA rolloff and vinyl would do to the sound. with digital and digital distribution a lot of these issues are gone... and others have appeared... I was a bit stunned at how much 'automatic' compensation for internet stream and 128 MP3 i had fallen into... over the years most of my 'mastering' motivation has been trying to fit the music in a tiny vinyl groove OR trying to fit the music thru an iphone and buds... when I actually 'CHOSE' to make files that required some ACTUAL audio gear and a REAL listening envioronment .. I was very pleasently surprised at what can be done...

[6strings]

The results of commercial releases these days make more of an argument against sending your mixes out for mastering.

If it sounds good, it is good. Just be sure to check your mixes on a variety of sources (earbuds to car stereos to iPad speaker etc.)

[JustMastering]

Originally Posted by 6strings

If it sounds good, it is good. Just be sure to check your mixes on a variety of sources (earbuds to car stereos to iPad speaker etc.)

I agree completely, 6strings .

One can spend hours/days tweaking their mixes through trial and error (sounds great in the car now... what does it need to help it sound a little clearer on the home stereo?). Good mastering will save you a lot of time, there, but if you're happy with the results you're achieving personally, there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Mastering does add the "second set of ears", though. Sometimes it can be a challenge for someone to hear issues in their own mixes because they're simply too close to them to notice (much like a painter that cannot see the big picture because they are working so closely on minute details). That added perspective can make a huge difference (ah! That sounds so much deeper/brighter/wider etc).

As da goose mentioned, communication between the engineer and the client is absolutely important. Mastering is both a technical and a creative process, so always know that when you submit your music for mastering that it's not a one-way process (or shouldn't be, anyway). If you're not happy with how your finished masters sound, it's important to let the engineer know so that they have a chance rectify the situation for you.

Best of luck!
Rob

[Winny Pooh]

FWIW, the change from a 16bit to a 24bit file is where the joy is lost for me. No mastering can fix that, which is perhaps part of what you are hearing. My 24 bit 2 bus in pro tools is more 3d than the ensuing 16 bit bounce/render I can try on all media players just immediately after.

[Franco]

Originally Posted by 6strings

The results of commercial releases these days make more of an argument against sending your mixes out for mastering.

Did you hear the mixes before all these releases were mastered? How do you know that the Mastering phase made these releases sound the way they do?

If people are going to add tons of compression and limiting to mixes, then yea, sure, why bother even sending it out to get it mastered? It's like baking a really bad cake in your home, then decide to send it to the bakers' so they can write "Happy Birthday Jill" on it (and demand that the cake taste good when it comes back).

[JustMastering]

Originally Posted by Franco

If people are going to add tons of compression and limiting to mixes, then yea, sure, why bother even sending it out to get it mastered? It's like baking a really bad cake in your home, then decide to send it to the bakers' so they can write "Happy Birthday Jill" on it (and demand that the cake taste good when it comes back).

+1


Rob

[mastertone]

Yeah skip it, Just shake and bake!

[Virtalahde]

Originally Posted by Franco

It's like baking a really bad cake in your home, then decide to send it to the bakers' so they can write "Happy Birthday Jill" on it (and demand that the cake taste good when it comes back).

Just a few weeks back I made a really good cake. Raspberries and blueberries. But I ate it.

[William Bowden]

Mastering can be important under certain circumstances, however some mixes sound great. If you've got the skills and the balls you don't need anyone else.

Sometimes though, I feel it's a bit like spelling: a lost art for those who understand it, and completely unnecessary for those who don't.

King Willy

[Greg Reierson]

Originally Posted by William Bowden

Sometimes though, I feel it's a bit like spelling: a lost art for those who understand it, and completely unnecessary for those who don't.

Or like editing one's own writing. The value of an independent reader to catch things you've tuned out is exactly the same as the value of an independent listener to hear the things you've tuned out.

How many books to go press without having been proofread?

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Greg Reierson

How many books to go press without having been proofread?

Meny! I dont thinc tat is much problam, do u?

Alistair

[William Bowden]

Originally Posted by Greg Reierson

Or like editing one's own writing. The value of an independent ready to catch things you've tuned out is exactly the same as the value of an independent listener to hear the things you've tuned out.

How many books to go press without having been proofread?

I think we might be showing our age. "Press" doesn't really cover Kindle does it? A friend of mine has gone straight to Amazon with his books (though I did do some proofreading for him in a couple of them).

I imagine in the nursing home I'll be next to a proofreader and we can talk about the grand old days when quality mattered...

King Willy

[Omega Arts]

I would never do a project of my own that didn't go to my mastering engineer. To me it's the last step and always makes me smile. That being said if you got a bad mastering lab and you don't like the results change labs. I'm forced to save money on some projects and do it myself. So sad for me.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

[6strings]

Originally Posted by Franco

Did you hear the mixes before all these releases were mastered? How do you know that the Mastering phase made these releases sound the way they do?

Open up the track in a DAW and look at how the waveforms are smashed to the ceiling. (But mostly, the recordings sound harsh and distorted) Not saying everyone does this... but it's very common in rock releases.

Anyway, no offense meant. I forgot for a moment which forum I was posting in, so I'll back out of the room sloooowly...

[Franco]

Originally Posted by 6strings

Anyway, no offense meant. I forgot for a moment which forum I was posting in, so I'll back out of the room sloooowly...

C'mon man, LOL, no offense taken whatsoever! It's an important topic, seriously, and I think it's good to discuss it.

A LOT of times, I get mixes that are "finalized" by the mix engineers and there's very very little room to work, and that's really frustrating (others here have expressed the same in the past). I have some pretty good processors that saturate signal in a way that's not as harsh as some of the usual digital processing suspects, but often times I don't use them because of the latter.

It also puts me in an awkward position every time I have to explain to the person paying the bill (usually the artist) that the mixes I'm working off aren't optimal, and that often puts you on someone's "doo-doo" list and it's the least enjoyable part of these kinds of jobs.

If anything, I would like to ask you to please consider the above when you hear a commercial release that doesn't sound pleasing.

[teknatronik]

Originally Posted by Rossd25

For my own material I now just master on the output bus. It seems pointless to bounce down to 24, open up a new session, and then master from there. Sometimes it takes tweaking the mix, which you can't do with a bounced down track.

this

once in the squashing stage somethings tend to pop out, like the snare which needs to be tamed again.

[Thor]

"We can make your master sound softer than the mix" (tm)

Send it on over ;-)

Thor

[abechap024]

I had a band come through that didn't have a budget for mastering (suprise) I really hate doing mastering myself, because I already feel like I get it to were I want to sound to begin with so why would I do it again?
Anyway so I mixed everthing, had a gssl then limiter to catch the stray peaks (not too much, figuring I would master it later) did the masters...sounded subjectivley better at the time...
Then took a couple day break, listened to them again and they are all hyped and crap. So I say screw it. If the band doesn't have budget to send it to a real mastering house, I'm not going to worry about it. I'm going to mix through a limiter.

[AngeFragile]

To the OP, if you didn't like the master and the rework I'd advise changing ME. Mastering is about refining and bringing out the best in a track.
I can understand more than a few ME's are sucked into the loudness war as it requested over and over again to make it louder than such and so. Please communicate with your ME, give a reference of the sound you're after. Any good ME will be happy to help you out, even with requested revisions.

@abechap024 This band hired you to do the best job possible, but you're not willing to put the time/effort in it? Mixing is about preparing the song(s) as best as possible, why screw them over?

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by rogerbrain

a couple days ago i decided to put some 24/192 files on bandcamp...just cuz I can. I was quite surprised at how good my mixes sounded with no mastering and nothing on the stereo outputs at all, AND how much I had been 'catering' to the loudness wars and the idea that my music would be listened to via iphone and buds... when i started thinking that a song may be listened to on hi end gear in a quiet place ... it changed how I envisioned the final product....a lot!! I gotta say i like the results a lot. I will still try to optimize my music for iphone and buds BUT going forward i will offer hi rez non mastered files as well.

The hi-res versions don't need to be unmastered, just mastered for a different audience and with different goals in mind. Mastering is not simply making loud, bright stuff. It's great when we get to make "audiophile" sound.

[rogerbrain]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

The hi-res versions don't need to be unmastered, just mastered for a different audience and with different goals in mind. Mastering is not simply making loud, bright stuff. It's great when we get to make "audiophile" sound.

[ShadowAMD]

Many times I mix into a limiter and mastering suite anyway, it's the second set of ears I mainly look for / need. If it's my own personal music, I'll even send it off to be mixed by someone else...

But many times due to budget of the artist, the end mix / master end's up being the final product. Sorry to say that many times it has been the correct approach as they ended up coming back to me to remaster from the mix. Throughout the mixing / recording process, you get a feel for what the client wants and it can be the best approach. As with everything it depends...