JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques Recording Studio and Gear Forum Mastering: Purpose? Best Programs? Pro Tools?

I have been composing and writing songs for years. In the past 10 years I have picked up bits and pieces of recording and in the last 2 have become serious about making professional level recordings.

My collaborator and I work with the new Digidesign003 Pro Tools 7.3 LE and have figured out how to make solid recordings with it. However, the last piece of the puzzle is to master our compositions for that finishing touch. Mastering... This is clearly our weakest link.

*We are writing for TV/Film markets and rarely record vocals right now.

For this subject I ask these questions:
-Discuss the ins and outs of Mastering...
-What is the purpose of Mastering?
-What are the best programs for Mastering in a project or intermediate set-up?
-What educational materials are there out there concerning mastering?
-What does the before and after of a mix sound like before mastering?
-How much time should be spent in general on Mastering? (percentage% of project)
-Is it necessary for song pitch demos?

Thanks for the discussion! Nate

Nate,

As you probably know, in the good old (vinyl) days, mastering was the process of taking a "finished" album tape and actually cutting acetate or lacquer to make 45 records or LP's. This usually involved compression and eq and level adjustments, both for sonic polish reasons and to try to compromise the sound the least in translating it to vinyl. The groove has/had physical constraints that had to be obeyed if you wanted to prevent the needle from skipping.

Stuff like the bass being only in the left channel, for example, pretty much had to be fixed.

CD's reproduce whatever you put on them; there's no physical constraint, save if you go over digital zero anywhere, you're clipping or distorting the signal. But that's easy to prevent.

So mastering now is basically one or more of the following:

polishing the sound in a variety of ways
adjusting the frequency balance if needed
adjusting the levels of songs relative to each other
sequencing songs with the proper spacing
making sure your CD has the proper PQ codes and other things that are needed for mass reproduction via glass master

A lot of the reason for still having mastering is in having someone who is impartial (and in theory has a proven track record in mastering successful recordings) review what you have to make sure there's no problems. Mastering facilities usually have monitor setups that exceed the quality of most studios, so things that might have been missed in the mix could be caught.

So to a certain extent, if you do your own mastering, you're trusting you'll be impartial and that your monitor setup isn't mis-representing your mix. I myself am very skeptical of my own stuff, for this reason. This is not to say you can't do it, but you have to recognize your own situation's shortcomings and compensate as best you can.

So mastering, for me personally, is a time consuming process. On something important, I mix it, burn a temp CD, and listen on every setup/car stereo/boom box/headphones I possibly can, and make notes, and make adjustments. Then listen again, on everything again, because (for example) an adjustment to fix a problem in my truck's stereo may make it sound bad on my studio's speakers. So compromise is the order of the day. Once you do this enough you get to where you have an idea of where stuff will land on other systems. However, there can still be surprises, especially if you change sonic palettes a lot e.g. acoustic bass on one song, fender P bass on another, etc. will make getting the low end consistent a challenge.

I bought a recently released CD that has one song where a single piano note literally jumps out of nowhere, way out of context, in my truck. As far as I can tell, it's perfectly fine on my Sony boom boxes, but I haven't given it a critical listen on my studio monitors. That's the type of thing you want to catch in mastering.

IMO there is no single 'best' program for mastering, just like there is no single best way to play a G chord on a guitar. Every one of the tools out there has a learning curve, and limitations. If you like a given program and are happy with the results, then good. If not, you have to try something else.

I run Sonar 6, and use the multiband compressor and eq that comes with, and iZotope Ozone. I've been pretty happy with the results, and more importantly, impartial but picky third parties have said "sounds good".

IMO anything that improves a demo is good. But you have to look at your time investment in the demo. Will it make the difference in getting a cut or whatever? Probably not, if everything else isn't great on the demo.

John

Hi Nate
Whhhaazzzuuuppp man. Back to school yet?...Anyway, I'd suggest you search the search box for mastering...there has already been countless threads about it. Say hi to Miss Carly, and Miss Kelly and Mr Brandon for me and Polina

Herbie

John, Thanks for the history lesson and the info!

I use a similiar technique for mixing down as you described. Burn out a mix and play it on every imaginable speaker set I can get my hands on. Take notes and mix it again.

I'll see if I can get my hands on some of those programs to try. Maybe visit a studio or two when they're doing the mastering process.

It wouldn't be cost effective for me to send everything out to a master house but if I had something extremely important, maybe.

Appreciate the feedback John!

Herbie!!!

What's up man? I'll say hi to everybody for ya! Say hi to Polina too!
I'll have to scroll down through and find the previous posts about Mastering!

Later, Nate

I've been using Protools for mastering a number of projects - both mine and for others. I do have the Platinum version of all the Waves plugins to help. I think it would be nearly impossible to do a decent job of mastering with the stock plugins that come with PTLE.

However, you can use just about any program for the final EQ and compression tweaking. It don't think Protools has any particular advantage there. I also use the latest version of Toast (which includes the older version of Jam as well). The monitoring environment and good ears are really the key to getting well-mastered CD projects much more so than what software you would use.

I do think there are programs that make it easier to get consistent results (final CD layout) with the pauses, levels, crossfades, etc than Protools. For instance, Waveburner, which comes with Logic Pro is a mastering program that makes track layout pretty easy. Also, check out Peak Pro, which is a Mac-based mastering program.

Hey Larry,

Thanks for the input! I'll check out those programs!

Nate

John said it rather well.

I've been mastering professionally for over 15 years and that is still in a nutshell what I'm doing. It's like having an editor proofread a book before you release it. Sometimes they catch things that are extremely important (words in the wrong spot can change the entire meaning of the sentence) and sometimes they make suggestions on how to better get across the emotion or feeling you're trying to convey. Overall, they didn't write the story and make up the characters but their influence can make the experience of reading the book much more enjoyable without the reader ever knowing what the editor/proofreader did.... As mastering guys, we are able to easily get the 30,000 foot view of the project and get closer from there.

As far as the tools you can use... can't help you too much on specifics as to what being done on the "prosumer" level or whatever since I've been using the "pro" stuff for years but I just wanted to convey the importance of not taking the mastering stage too lightly. I don't think you can use just any eq or compressor. I think you need something that you know sounds good. Any eq can make a dull track brighter but does it also bring up a bunch of other high frequency crap that an EQ with a more adujustable cue would allow you to get the same brightness without the crap.... Especially in the digital realm. You can get some pretty crunchy and non-forgiving plugs.... I'm not a big fan of plugs but I've heard good things about the iZotope. I do most of my processing with outboard boxes.

So there's my 2 cents. Hope it helps a little.

Paul

There seems to be somewhat of a consensus in the industry that The person who mixes a project should not be the one to master it. Someone earlier mentioned having an editor read your manuscipt, and that is an appropriate analogy. A fresh, unbiased pair of ears is likely to catch things that you are missing.

Of course, it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. But if you are preparing a project for release, or for pitching to labels, I would recommend that you hire an experienced mastering studio for the job. It's really not that expensive.

Good luck.

I agree with much of what has been said. A fresh pair of ears and all that. However as always the final say would be down to me. I know what I want and it is my money after all. My tip would be to use someone you know who will do a good job. It may take a bit more STUDIO time which will obviously cost more money but it will be worth it.
A notice in the studio I use reads " Excellence comes as standard. Perfection costs extra."

After re-reading my last post, I wanted to add a clarification: I did not mean to infer that the EQ and compression that comes with most programs is up to the level of true "mastering quality" hardware, or even up to the level of the mastering plugins from Waves, or iZotope or others. What I meant was that if you are going to use an application to apply those plugins, I haven't heard of a big difference in sound quality of the audio engine between the likes of Logic Pro, Sonar, Cubase, Protools or whatever. However, the quality of the plugins definitely matters.

I have been recording and mastering projects both professionally and semi-professionally since 2" 16-track tape was common. I would always recommend a pro mastering engineer if you are going to be competing with the "big boy major labels". Of course, in that situation, the record company will most likely front you the money. For independent releases where $1000+ is a LOT of money for the indie artist to go to a mastering engineer, sometimes the DIY approach is the only way to get it done. Just be careful that your DIY job doesn't make it sound worse. Always, always, always compare your "master" with a professionally-mastered song similar in style for EQ balance, compression, and loudness.

Good Advice as always Larry. You get what you pay for. In the end it is all down to budget, availability of services and the purpose of the recording. My advice TO MOST FOLK is always do the best you can with the means available. Do not give up the day job and don't break the bank. Sometimes it is worth taking a chance but be sure of what you are getting into.

I'd like to add that when picking your album you are comparing it to - be careful. I mean I can point you to 100's of albums that I wouldn't want to sound like in just about every genre including jazz and classical because even those genre's are not immune to the loudness wars.

Adding onto Paul's comment...

If I were going to have my next CD mastered by someone else, I'd ask them to make it sound like one of my fave CDs... FROM 1983. Just about every CD I've bought in the past 3 years has sounded like crap due to the fact that mastering companies are being forced at gunpoint to make CDs AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE. Part of this might be that the mixes they are being sent are already jacked up - I dunno.

I bought the new Crowded House CD and I was shocked at how bad it sounds... when compared to their last CD from about ten years ago. Their old CDs sound great... you crank them up and you can hear a lot of details. The new CD sounds terrible... it's almost like each individual instrument was equalized to sound "full" and when you put them all together and compress it, it sounds like a mess. Strike that... it sounds full at very low volumes, and at very high volumes it's harsh and nasty sounding. Most of the songs are great, though, so I suffer through it.

I wonder what would happen if you asked a mastering lab to make your CD sound like 1983? Would they laugh at you, or would they say "Thank GOD, a customer that wants their music to sound good!" Of course you'd have to send them a mix that wasn't already heavily "maximized."

I've never tried Disc Makers for mastering but I've used them for duplication and they ROCK.

i like using precision multiband compressor, eq and limiter by universal audio. i've seen the eq and limiter used at bernie grundman's in the '90's.

aloha,
daniel

I've had people tell me that they didn't want to get caught up in the loudness wars and our response is usually "Great, we'll do very little compression and we'll allow it to remain musical, etc..." Then we send them a ref to listen to and they say, "sounds great but can we get a littlemore level because when I compare it to XxXxX, it's way low" thus starts the same slippery slope. When it comes down to it artists/produces don't have the guts to buck the trend. Surprising coming from a bunch of "trend setters" like musicians.

btw Richard, I thought the same thing about the Crowded House album. The tracks mixed by Tchad Blake I like a little better but overall it's underwhelming sounding. There are those moments that are supposed to climax and get bigger in songs that never get there... shame too becuase I think Neil Finn is the best songwriter alive right now.

Sounds like many mixes I've had the 'pleasure' of working on. A little more guitar. A little more vocals. Hey... Now I can't hear the keys. ah, what happened to the drums?

It seems to me that if the music isn't good before the mix no amount of electronic tinkering will help it. So it all comes down to what you put on tape/disc/ or whatever. As they say garbage in, garbage out.

Sweet point Ray, I think, not even so much if the song is good or not, but if the arrangement is good or not determines a great deal how the song sounds. It could be the best song ever written but if you throw ten flanging guitars at it with a fluglehorn it can ruin it ( not that I have anything against fluglehorns!). It can be a horrible song but if it's got great tones and a nice arrangement it's still a horrible song but it more listenable than the flanging-guitarfest.... My point is that I think the arrangement of the song tends to be underated and overlooked by too many people and fluglehorn players (not that fluglehorn players aren't people too.)

i'm trying something different this time. instead of compressing the final mix at the end, i'm doing the compressing on the individual tracks in an effort to maintain their sonic integrity. then just catching the peaks with a limiter for mastering.

i sort of mix and master at the same time.

daniel

there is an article in the current issue of music connection about mastering. interviewed 4 top mastering engineers. seems everyone is taking issue with the battle for volume. i think so too.

daniel

IMHO ... this is the way to do it. It gives you the ability to be a heck of a lot more efficient with your mixes.