Ok...so everything's mixed to perfection. How do YOU get it ready to be mastered?

[Big 3rd]

For those of us that mix ITB, when everything is just the way you want it, what are the things that YOU do to get it prepared for mastering?

Do you bounce to disc, find the file, drag it to iTunes, then burn a copy?
Do you leave it in the digital realm but bypass the "bounce to disc" feature and run it through the fiber optic cable, straight to your CD player to be burnt, then send THAT to be mastered?
(I know these probably aren't the most professional ways for it to be done...I'm just trying to get some feedback)

But, what is your process of choice and why?

[DaKid]

Originally Posted by Big 3rd

For those of us that mix ITB, when everything is just the way you want it, what are the things that YOU do to get it prepared for mastering?

Do you bounce to disc, find the file, drag it to iTunes, then burn a copy?
Do you leave it in the digital realm but bypass the "bounce to disc" feature and run it through the fiber optic cable, straight to your CD player to be burnt, then send THAT to be mastered?
(I know these probably aren't the most professional ways for it to be done...I'm just trying to get some feedback)

But, what is your process of choice and why?

I personally would just bounce it in PT if you got the mix the way you want it....

To my understanding- all they want is a 2 track mix...

I'm sure you know, but dont compress the stereo buss....

And if you're that concerned (i know how you feel, its your art and want it to turn out as good as f'n possible!) just talk to your mastering engineer before you send it off to him and ask him if there's anything that you can do to make his job easier/ make the product turn out better...

Also wouldn't hurt to post this on the mastering forum.... the guys on there def. know a shitload more than I do but... hope this helped

good luck

[Big 3rd]

Originally Posted by DaKid

I personally would just bounce it in PT if you got the mix the way you want it....

To my understanding- all they want is a 2 track mix...

I'm sure you know, but dont compress the stereo buss....

And if you're that concerned (i know how you feel, its your art and want it to turn out as good as f'n possible!) just talk to your mastering engineer before you send it off to him and ask him if there's anything that you can do to make his job easier/ make the product turn out better...

Also wouldn't hurt to post this on the mastering forum.... the guys on there def. know a shitload more than I do but... hope this helped

good luck

Really I was looking for the little extra steps some engineers do to come up with a two track. Some engineers don't like the bounce to disk feature while others like to run their mix back through a 1073 or whatever to add a little more warmth, then take the mix through other routes....other than the bounce to disk feature.

Some engineers swear that BTD, draggin the file to iTunes, then burning from iTunes, alters their mix for the worse.

[danasti]

Originally Posted by Big 3rd

But, what is your process of choice and why?

The last few times I've printed 6 or 8 stereo busses and created a pro tools session file with those and brought it into mastering as 6 or 8 stems. I really like it because we can shoot some of them to 1/2 inch and run out the drum buss to the ear eqs (holy!)... A vocal stem through an Ibis and a quality vari mu never hurts.

I also bring the entire session file and my iLok/plugs because if something is phasing or there is a psycoaccoustic problem i'll need to fix that for vinyl before we make plates. It's hard to tell how a cutting lathe will react if you use big reverbs/delays/phazers/flangers or if you have a lowend problem and something is unbalanced/uneven). Sometimes you can change a little tiny thing and get a much louder sounding record.

I've been really liking setting the final levels at mastering cause the room is soooo nice and the monitoring is outstanding (+ my guy lets ME set the mix level). When I mix down like this I'm not using too much compression/limiting on the stems before mastering. I bring in a cd of my own "home mastered" version to A/B with the final 2 track so the "feel" doesn't get lost in gear heaven and it stays true to concept.

[wreck]

Bounce to disk and have the AIF ready to upload or burn it as a data cd to be shipped to mastering.

[Jules]

If your session is a 24 bit.....dont bounce to 16 bit 44.1 as you would one of your normal "listening copies"

Keep it 24 bit 44.1

in other words - you aint bringing them no audio CD to pop into a stereo system..... you are bringing them a DATA CD of the highest resolution you can

And dont mess around with any normalizing let those dogs sort the loudness shit out, they are the experts.. leave that stuff to them...

[treymonfauntre]

why does it seem like itunes isn't the best option for cd burning?

[octatonic]

what Jules said....

Basically as little as possible.

[TheReal7]

bounce to dual mono wavs from pt le at 24/44.1. Burn to DVD. Then off to my bud's studio to run through his board with a bit of 2bus comp. and then to 1/4" tape. Then bring the ME the tapes. ;)

[qubi]

I'm mastering a song next week at metropolis, this is only my second or 3rd pro mastering session, (i do most of my stuff inhouse, for tv ads mostly).. anyway, what i take is the usual items:

full mix
mix with vocals +.75 to 1 db
mix with vocals - .75 to 1 db
Instrumental mix
Lead vocals (with all fx processing)
Background vocals

and this time, also taking the Main Drum /Bass buss bounce, and everything else except drum/bass bounce.. Just because it's a heavy dance track and i'm just being over prepared.

all files as Aiff 44.1, 24bit, on Cd-r (and probably backup on my Ipod!). and the mix is recorded straight off my digital mixer (via lightpipe) back into DAW, with NO buss compression or eq.. I was tempted, but the m. engineer will probably have better gear anyway.

Sorry for the long answer, but you did ask for details :) good luck.

[Bob Olhsson]

I like mixing back into a stereo track. That way I can use playlists to compare mixes and, if need be, even comp and then consolidate and export my mixes. Much faster than automation.

I like + or - .5 dB. More than that and it feels like a different mix.

[filterayok]

if your talking for a final mix on a released cd, i've heard that "bounce to disk" does horrible things to the sound... all the guys at our studio take the out puts of the ssl (or in your case the interface) and run that into the cd player and DATS... i guess, though, you wouldn't be able to bring the highest resolution possible that way... but in the end its goin to 16 bit 44.1k anyway.... i think the idea is to avoid bouncing to disk, though.. i've A/B'd a bounce to disk mix with one that wasn't and i remember thinking wow, u really can hear the difference.. and i have semi-crappy ears for that kinda stuff, so....

[Big 3rd]

Originally Posted by filterayok

if your talking for a final mix on a released cd, i've heard that "bounce to disk" does horrible things to the sound... all the guys at our studio take the out puts of the ssl (or in your case the interface) and run that into the cd player and DATS... i guess, though, you wouldn't be able to bring the highest resolution possible that way... but in the end its goin to 16 bit 44.1k anyway.... i think the idea is to avoid bouncing to disk, though.. i've A/B'd a bounce to disk mix with one that wasn't and i remember thinking wow, u really can hear the difference.. and i have semi-crappy ears for that kinda stuff, so....

Yeah see...that's what I've been told too. Lately I've been doing it the exact what that you described...from the apogee, straight to the cd player. Sometimes I might run it back through the 1073 just to give it another touch of analog before it goes to disc.

But explain to me how some of the resolution will get lost in this type of process.
This is also something that I'm still kinda hazy in....the conversion of 24bit/96khz audio to 16bit/44.1khz audio when ready to master a 2 track mix and the proper steps that need to be taken.

Please explain it to me, you probably know something about it that I probably don't but should know.

[filterayok]

if i do a session thats higher the 16 , 44.1, then its only because i wanna record at the best possible rates, to hopefully minimize the degredation once it goes to cd... but in the end, on cd, its gotta be 44.1, 16 bit... so to me, its all about at what point do you want to bring it there?? once u leave pt and go to the cd, your at 16bit 44.1 k, but the mastering guy is eventually gonna have to do this anyway so whats the difference? i think avoiding whatever "bounce to disk" does is more important then holding on to that 24bit 48k for one more session

its kinda like you want the mastering guy to paint you a portrait of urself, based on a photograph, and ur worried about how sharp the photo your giving him is... u dig?? it's gonna be put down in paints anyway

[sardi]

Its been proven time and time again that BTD does nuthin to alter the sound.

BTD and then rec the file to another track instead. Phase invert one. you will find it nulls totally.

There has been a bazillion threads about this in the past.

Ive tried it. Try it for yourself.

But to re-iterate what everyone else has said, if your recording at 24 bit, then take a wav of the file as a data disc/thumbdrive to the mastering house. Dont convert it to audio CD. Leave it at the highest possible resolution so the you can take advantage of the ME's infinant array of excellent processors.

All the best. :)

[Methlab]

I print to a 2 track. I keep it at 32 bit float and 44.1 . I alter nothing. For rap, sometimes I use some compression on the 2 bus for glue, but that's it..I don't EQ or normalize the 2

I then ship that mix to the mastering house.

If I am going to DIY, I use Izotope, crush it in there and convert to 16 bit that way. I always keep everything 32 bit until the dithering process, then drop it down to 16.

[Jules]

Originally Posted by filterayok

but in the end, on cd, its gotta be 44.1, 16 bit... so to me, its all about at what point do you want to bring it there?? once u leave pt and go to the cd, your at 16bit 44.1 k, but the mastering guy is eventually gonna have to do this anyway so whats the difference?

Mastering engineers are used to folks not knowing the difference and will shrug their shoulders and say a 16 bit CDR is fine - because that is all they have to work from.. But they will actually prefer the best resolution possible you can give them..

I will tell you why exactly ...analog gear

The mastering engineer might want to run the audio through a high quality analog signal chain to eq & compress the audio (and a dozen other things they like to do to get it to sound great)

THEN - they will want to convert it to digital again (or send the analog signal to a cutting lathe if its for vinyl)

To send it out to this gear and back again - mastering studios have high quality converters - and they reproduce your audio better at 24 bit resolution than they will at 16 bit..

They will want to be spitting your audio out at 24 bit

If you have already messed it up by converting it to 16 bit - You wont be allowing them access to send the highest resolution of signal through their analog gear..

- Imagine you were sending in a car for a new paint job and the paint shop said - don't wax the car before sending it in.. and you said "yah well.., I waxed it anyway.."

It's not what point YOU want to bring it to 16 bit. Its about letting the experts bring it down to 16 bit and not doing that yourself. That's a big part of the mastering gig.. There is a lot to it, more than you might think..

[dtrax]

Originally Posted by sardi

Its been proven time and time again that BTD does nuthin to alter the sound.

BTD and then rec the file to another track instead. Phase invert one. you will find it nulls totally.

There has been a bazillion threads about this in the past.

Ive tried it. Try it for yourself.

it doesn't null completely for me... something like -84dB. but when A/B'ed, neither i or anyone else in the studio could tell the two apart.

i chalk this up to 'internet myth'.

[Big 3rd]

Originally Posted by Jules

Mastering engineers are used to folks not knowing the difference and will shrug their shoulders and say a 16 bit CDR is fine - because that is all they have to work from.. But they will actually prefer the best resolution possible you can give them..

I will tell you why exactly ...analog gear

The mastering engineer might want to run the audio through a high quality analog signal chain to eq & compress the audio (and a dozen other things they like to do to get it to sound great)

THEN - they will want to convert it to digital again (or send the analog signal to a cutting lathe if its for vinyl)

To send it out to this gear and back again - mastering studios have high quality converters - and they reproduce your audio better at 24 bit resolution than they will at 16 bit..

They will want to be spitting your audio out at 24 bit

If you have already messed it up by converting it to 16 bit - You wont be allowing them access to send the highest resolution of signal through their analog gear..

- Imagine you were sending in a car for a new paint job and the paint shop said - don't wax the car before sending it in.. and you said "yah well.., I waxed it anyway.."

It's not what point YOU want to bring it to 16 bit. Its about letting the experts bring it down to 16 bit and not doing that yourself. That's a big part of the mastering gig.. There is a lot to it, more than you might think..

Ok....I kinda get what you're saying but what I'm trying to understand is:

If the M.E. run the 24 bit/96k mix through the analog gear X,Y, and Z, then convert it to 16bit....then really it's more about what was used to convert the audio from 24 to 16 than it is about what analog gear the audio was ran through, isn't it?

Because as I see it, the end result is and depends on the conversion. Now unless there is more of an impact to the audio when running it through X, Y, and Z BEFORE converting it to 16bit....than it is when running it AFTER it has been converted to 16bit, then what you are saying obviously makes sense. But it would only make sense if it showed in the final 16bit mastered copy. Is this what you are suggesting?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Big 3rd

Ok....I kinda get what you're saying but what I'm trying to understand is:

If the M.E. run the 24 bit/96k mix through the analog gear X,Y, and Z, then convert it to 16bit....then really it's more about what was used to convert the audio from 24 to 16 than it is about what analog gear the audio was ran through, isn't it?

Its both.

That's why they prefer the highest resolution possible.

But if you work all digital you may not have that choice.


Unless you are compressing the mix yourself and in that case you will have to convert it to analog and when you bring it back you can choose the bit and sample rate.

[danasti]

Originally Posted by Big 3rd

If the M.E. run the 24 bit/96k mix through the analog gear X,Y, and Z, then convert it to 16bit....then really it's more about what was used to convert the audio from 24 to 16 than it is about what analog gear the audio was ran through, isn't it?

The ME won't convert it to 16 bit to run it through the analog gear; he will just convert it from 24bit digital to analog with very precise 24bit converters.

Then he will print it to tape or run it to a lathe for vinyl or any analog format.

Now he will come back in digital create spacing, cd times, fades and error check the audio and prepare for a red book master. He'll insure the number of errors is appropriate and have it ready to send out for manufacturing.

Then he will use a high end DITHERING process to capture all the 24bit information he can. This is what takes it from 24bit to 16bit as lossless as possible. (search on dither)

Actually it's really silly to give a 16 bit cd (goodbye S/N ratio!) of a mix to an ME when you could easily give him a 24bit 2 track wav file. Why? Because masterings main function is to create the final format and he spent all the money for the tools to do that job.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by danasti

Actually it's really silly to give a 16 bit cd (goodbye S/N ratio!) of a mix to an ME when you could easily give him a 24bit 2 track wav file. Why? Because masterings main function is to create the final format and he spent all the money for the tools to do that job.

Well if his session is in PT and he started it at 16 bits when he bounces it down it can only be at 16 bits.

Bouncing it down to 24 bits just adds 8 zeroes at the end.

[Big 3rd]

Originally Posted by danasti

The ME won't convert it to 16 bit to run it through the analog gear; he will just convert it from 24bit digital to analog with very precise 24bit converters.

Then he will print it to tape or run it to a lathe for vinyl or any analog format.

Now he will come back in digital create spacing, cd times, fades and error check the audio and prepare for a red book master. He'll insure the number of errors is appropriate and have it ready to send out for manufacturing.

Then he will use a high end DITHERING process to capture all the 24bit information he can. This is what takes it from 24bit to 16bit as lossless as possible. (search on dither)

Actually it's really silly to give a 16 bit cd (goodbye S/N ratio!) of a mix to an ME when you could easily give him a 24bit 2 track wav file. Why? Because masterings main function is to create the final format and he spent all the money for the tools to do that job.

Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.

[Big 3rd]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Well if his session is in PT and he started it at 16 bits when he bounces it down it can only be at 16 bits.

Bouncing it down to 24 bits just adds 8 zeroes at the end.

I always do all my sessions in 24/96.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Big 3rd

I always do all my sessions in 24/96.

Then just bounce it down to a 24 bit/96Khz file.

The ME will get it down to a 16 bit/44.1khz stereo interleaved file.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Jules

... they will actually prefer the best resolution possible you can give them..

I will tell you why exactly ...analog gear...

This is true in the case of digital gear too. All signal processing is destructive so the more quality you have going into mastering, the more you'll have coming out. The difference is signal fragility.

I have run into one DAW that produced better 16 bit files than 24 so it's still important to use one's ears however assuming the DAW isn't broken, the highest non-converted resolution is the best bet.