TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Curious...

Curious...

I was listening to a set last night and it just blew me away it was obviously specially mastered. Im sure everyone masters their mixes...

I come here to ask what you will try to achieve when mastering a mix and what products are best for that in your opinions? Thanks in advance

You would probably be suprised to find how many people actually don't master their mixes.
That said, it depends on where you hear the mix as to how it was mastered. i.e. was it on radio, was it on a CD or live even?

Considering the tracks are already mastered the techniques used for mixes are very different.

You would probably find that some light compression has been added and also some limiting. Some people also use some light Sonic Maximizing but needs to be applied in small doses.

Mastering isn't something that should be taken lightly though, it is an artform in it's own right and takes a lot of practice.

Cheers
Nem

The main thing I noticed was that the kicks were definitely adjusted in some way. They were just dripping with punch. There was also very little tonal difference between the kicks from different songs.

Am I too believe that in fact the mastering im thinking of was a bunch of edits to make the tracks feel clubbier?

Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 There was also very little tonal difference between the kicks from different songs.

I've acctually noticed this in some studio sets. One key to this I guess is that the tracks are chosen well in the first place.

Obviously they are going to be chosen well but that offers zero explanation of what I was asking about. I'm glad someone else noticed it.

Drawing complete blanks as to what/how it's done.

I never do any normalising/adjusting of my mixes, and u shouldn't have to. You should be getting your levels right in que to eliminate the hotter or drop in sound. What mix are u referring to? A bedroom DJ or a commercial release? The type of recording hardware/software makes a big difference, as well as track selection. Going into a Warner Bros music studio and recording a mix in there with a real engineer will make a hell of a difference than the same mix recorded with Audacity.

quote:

Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY I never do any normalising/adjusting of my mixes, and u shouldn't have to. You should be getting your levels right in que to eliminate the hotter or drop in sound. What mix are u referring to? A bedroom DJ or a commercial release? The type of recording hardware/software makes a big difference, as well as track selection. Going into a Warner Bros music studio and recording a mix in there with a real engineer will make a hell of a difference than the same mix recorded with Audacity.

I listened to 3-4 most recent global dj broadcasts by Markus Schulz and it really stuck out to me. Wasn't a bad thing quite the opposite actually. The thought process I immediately had was did he really make club edits to every fucking song?

Then I came to reality and realized there's no way he would be able to do that for each of his studio sets.

So still up on in the air on what it is that makes it sound so good. Juicy punchy kicks, mmmm Lol

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 Obviously they are going to be chosen well but that offers zero explanation of what I was asking about. I'm glad someone else noticed it. Drawing complete blanks as to what/how it's done.

If the tracks are chosen well, it makes mastering the mix a lot easier. The better the mastering the more the sounds will sound the same.

Also, if the tracks are chosen well, there will be less tonal difference in the kicks, won't it?

So, that's my explanation. Mastering, and track selection. Also, if they really wanted to they could just replace the kick. I know in PvD's Politics of Dancing he made a big point about remixing all the tunes that went in to the mixes.

It's probably a combination of things, but I seriously doubt he remixes all his tracks for a radio show.

The factors are:

Very good signal chain (great mixer, proper cables, no mp3's, to a good recording interface), then a subtle amount of compression, all used in a good listening environment, with someone who can mix, balance and eq well.

Don't forget all radio shows use broadcast compression if transmitted, and even when it's prerecord for distribution they will compress it and limit it to taste.

I realize they could just be chosen well but im saying songs I own, they just sound different.

Like I said the logical explanation of the sound is that it seems like what would be done when a track is made into a club mix. However like I said and someone else agreed with I sincerely doubt he is doing that for all his radio shows especially since he has two of them.

Also for my studio mixes should I upconvert my files to wav? Is there going to be a noticeable difference? Because I usually use mp3 cds encoded in 320kbps..

Off topic I know but interested to know none the less.

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 I realize they could just be chosen well but im saying songs I own, they just sound different. Like I said the logical explanation of the sound is that it seems like what would be done when a track is made into a club mix. However like I said and someone else agreed with I sincerely doubt he is doing that for all his radio shows especially since he has two of them. Also for my studio mixes should I upconvert my files to wav? Is there going to be a noticeable difference? Because I usually use mp3 cds encoded in 320kbps.. Off topic I know but interested to know none the less.

You can't replace what has been taken away with an mp3, hence no reason to convert to wav. That right there explains a lot why the tracks sound differently. Starting with mp3's at the source, then recorded through your system, and then most likely converted again to mp3 (if u recorded as a wav)to upload for download. A lot of the track has been taken away, in particular, the kick. Always buy wav, if u are planning to play out or recording especially.

I thought compressing was able to be undone. Its just a compression algorithm. So what you take away should be able to be uncompressed. In fact I am nearly certain because all of my albums that I bought pre djing before I started buying digitally were first ripped at 192kbps and then upconverted to 320kbps.

Im pretty sure you're wrong about that statement but if you aren't my apologies in advance.

sry, double post, look below :/

for the record, I wasn't talking about the radio show, I was talking about the CDs. I wasn't aware he had a radioshow by the same name.

And, from what I've heard, he does a lot of serious live-remixing, so I wouldn't doubt it if he did it for the radioshow as well. But, as I said, I've no clue about that.

Ninja-Edit:

And no, you can't unconvert mp3's. It's are a lossy format meaning you acctually lose information while converting. There was a thread about it a few weeks ago where that was explained. Sorry for the off topic.

Up converting does nothing apart from make them take up more space - you will have no increase in quality from the original.

AS for you studio mixes, you should record them at 44.1, 24bit (good balance of quality and size), then convert them as little times as possible (i.e. once).

Why do I notice more clarity in files I have upconverted then? It's not snall things either I notice fairly big differences...?

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 Why do I notice more clarity in files I have upconverted then? It's not snall things either I notice fairly big differences...?

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 Why do I notice more clarity in files I have upconverted then? It's not snall things either I notice fairly big differences...?

Multi compression is like aging, your cells dont split into exact duplicates, they have minor changes every time they split which is why we look older as we get older.

Its kind of interesting when you notice more clarity. When you upconvert it should actually have a lower quality.

wav > 192 > 320

Basically, youre recompressing the 2nd copy for no reason. Unless the software you use artificially puts the missing bits cut out. Kind of like studio magic where they auto tune the singers voice. Possibility of why your track sounds different?

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 I thought compressing was able to be undone. Its just a compression algorithm. So what you take away should be able to be uncompressed. In fact I am nearly certain because all of my albums that I bought pre djing before I started buying digitally were first ripped at 192kbps and then upconverted to 320kbps. Im pretty sure you're wrong about that statement but if you aren't my apologies in advance.

You must be thinking in terms of a FLAC file vs a WAV file which is indeed a lossless COMPRESSION. When u convert a WAV to an MP3, u are removing a lot of frequencies that we cannot hear but can feel, and also some we can hear of course. You cannot replace what has been taken away when u convert to mp3. All you are doing is spreading out the data, not creating or adding back to it. This is why you would never want to play an mp3 less than 320 on a big system or it would sound tinny or metallic, and the bass would be weak and distorted...in other words it sounds like absolute shit.

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 There was also very little tonal difference between the kicks from different songs.

Perhaps it's just good set programming?

If the mix was done in ableton, then there's a good chance that a warmer or tube amp was applied to the master channel. These devices color the sound in a distinctive way, and can be used to homogenize the dynamics and feel of a mix. VSTs like the PSP vintage warmer and the BBE sonic maximizer have a distinctive sound, and are used to compensate for ableton smearing the transients with complex (key lock) mode.

This isn't really mastering unless the eq'ing is automated, but its still a step up in sound quality (in my opinion) from a lot of mixes. That's not to say you can't achieve the same quality with good eq'ing and level control though, as mastering basically comes down to those two things when mastering dj mixes. Its best to avoid compressing/widening/exciting mixes too much (if you have to do it at all), as dance music is so compressed already. Also, the never ending "loudness war" has destroyed the dynamic range (having both soft and loud elements) of a lot of music.

Anyway, when it comes to mastering to dj mixes, less is usually more.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.