As you know, I master while I mix. Send everything through a chain of plugins on my master buss from the start. It also helps that I have monitors that are considered "mastering-grade", which is something i recommend to anyone. I learned a long time ago that it didn't work for me to try to do a mixdown and master in a separate process form the writing. Doing things that way totally screwed with the tonal balance of my tracks.

I used to do it separately because I thought that's what you were "supposed to do". However a few years back, I watched with Steve Angello who mentioned that he started with a chain of plugins on his master from the start. He said "if you do it that way, once you finish writing and mixing the track, its done. No messing about with master after the fact" (paraphrasing).

Once I did that, it was a major breakthrough and my tracks finally started sounding comparable to the tracks I was hearing from other established producers. Not coincidentally, that's also when I started getting my tracks signed.

In addition, "mastering" after the fact was a total ass-beating. I'd spend just as much time "mastering" as I did writing the track, and usually the results were noticeably worse. It became the quickest way to sap the life out of you when writing a track. Spend all this time writing and composing only to get to the end and not be able to spit out a finished product. Total beating.

Also, it is not economically viable for me to send every track off to a mastering engineer, especially when I can't be there with him. So, I just do it myself, and the results are working out fine for me. I think if I didn't have high quality monitors then it might be a bit more difficult, but I sold off tons of external hardware to finance the monitors because I knew that it would provide the most value for my money and have the most impact on my music. Turns out, I was right.

Thanks for the reply Eric. Lots of great tips, and you're right on, but my concern right now is mastering environments (what programs people use to master) - As you know, I run Olympik, and I have been mastering our tracks since the beginning of the label (the ones that need mastering) - Am I a pro? No. But if you look at the list of names who have played tracks I have mastered then I have to believe I'm doing something right.

Ableton's fine mate.

The only thing you're missing out on compared to bias peak or whatever (whcih I think is still the standard?) is the slightly better (or different?) conversion from 32fp to 16 bit. No one's likely to actually notice that in practise, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

___________________
New Mix: March 2010 Promo
Soundcloud|Facebook

I'd like to point out one thing about Eric's post.

Eric is knowledgable and experienced enough to know what to have the master chain, besides the fact he has very serious kit and a probably one of the most professional setups on TA.

I assist a lot of engineers as my job, and the ones that mix in to a chain do so becuase it saves them time from having to do it as a separate step, but the reason they can do it is that they know that kit so well the tell us all the settings before they even arrive, and rarely change them.

I would not suggest mixing in to a chain unless you seem to find yourself reaching for the same thing most times when you finally get to the mastering stage or you already know what you're going to do in that stage as you're mixing. You also need to have monitors and DAC's that are up to it.

The main thing I notice about mastering setups, as how simple they often are: large diafragm monitors, paired with some very detailed mid or nearfields, some simple but envy inducing outboard (especially the compressors) and usually a large-ish room (never seen a small mastering room as such).

Personally, if I have the facilities available, then I'd do it in protools, as there is just more minute control in PTHD than I'm able to get from logic or cubase. Plugins on regions, audio manipulation and editing, etc.

If not then Logic would be my close second place.

Ergh, I'm with eric... I do my mastering at the mixing stage too. Everyone told me not to, but its only since I started doing it that way that I've had any luck getting the sound I want.

I find it helps me to set the balance right if I have all the mastering plugins on there and I can see how they all respond as a system.

___________________
New Mix: March 2010 Promo
Soundcloud|Facebook

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley Just wondering what people use here as a mastering environment. I'm still using Ableton but I'm thinking about moving towards something that is more geared towards true mastering. Any tips, etc? What do you guys use.

Personally I use Sequoia and Cubase/Nuendo. ( looking to try out Pyramix though!! ) I do not recommened Pro Tools HD like someone else did because it's not a complete mastering DAW. There are some guys who do it in Pro Tools HD, but they didn't get Pro Tools HD just for mastering alone.

For hardware or plugins, it's all a matter of personal taste, so simply choose what you think is best. Don't listen to the partisan BS on what is best, use it on your own work and decide if it works for you or not.

___________________
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity

quote:

Originally posted by Timothy I do not recommened Pro Tools HD like someone else did because it's not a complete mastering DAW.

Would you care to elaborate?

___________________

Storyteller Website | Storyteller @ Facebook | Storyteller @ Beatport | Storyteller @ Soundcloud | Stephen J. Kroos - Europa (Storyteller Remix)
Anthony Mea - Get It On (Storyteller Remix)

quote:

If less is more think about how much more more would be. -Frasier

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller Would you care to elaborate?

+1. Yes, please. I would love to know why you think it's not a "complete mastering DAW".

i play my ch00n out in mono on one ear bud and hold it above the mic on my circa 95 Sanyo BoomBox0r and put it on tape because of the warmth it gives it and i can even put it on other tapes with my awesome indie band

Pro Tools HD has problems with very easy things like handling files with more than one sample rate, same also for bit depts. The markers in Pro Tools HD also tend to be very limited. There are work around for issues like this ofcourse.

It's easy stuff like this that makes me feel like Pro Tools HD is geared towards tracking and mixing instead of mastering.

I rather stick with Sequoia over Pro Tools HD for mastering personally.

And why force yourself to use the hardware from digidesign. There are better converters on the market for example?

___________________
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity

quote:

Originally posted by Timothy Pro Tools HD has problems with very easy things like handling files with more than one sample rate, same also for bit depts. The markers in Pro Tools HD also tend to be very limited. There are work around for issues like this ofcourse. It's easy stuff like this that makes me feel like Pro Tools HD is geared towards tracking and mixing instead of mastering. I rather stick with Sequoia over Pro Tools HD for mastering personally. And why force yourself to use the hardware from digidesign. There are better converters on the market for example?

I agree that there are better converters out there and I loathe the fact the PTHD is a closed system but you're talking nonesense about the sample rate and bit depth issues.

We have 4 fully expanded PTHD rigs (6 cards+) in each studio room and run multiple sample rates between rooms and machines all day long without issues.

In fact we've even worked with projects where the sample rates are different at different points in the cues.

Yes, you can get the pyramix mastering bundle, but pTHD vastly outstrips Pyramix in terms of plugins, not to mention routing and overall functionality. Down to raw sonic quality, I prefer pyramix but pyramix is just as much geared towards mixing and tracking as protools is. Frankly, for just two tracks (not including routing) (which the majority of mastering is), you'd be a fool to buy either system for that function alone as you're paying so much extra with both of them (both being around the same costs) just for their track counts and routing.


You can both make them do the same thing...I think you've been reading to much on GS