|
EQing instead of mastering
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Digital Aura |
After pouring through the "Exploration of Mastering" sticky above, I have just begun to grasp the importance of Mastering. I have just finished my first complete tune and obviously I was amazed at how terrible the mix sounded as an mp3 unmastered.
My question is... if I had EQed the heck out of each patch and applied compression to the bass and drums before the mixdown would there still be a need to master afterwards? |
|
|
| Azza Robinson |
| not sure mate i know u would have to normalize it ect after i eq as i go along each sound seperate equing so it sound fits together but stands out, then out final master on the master and a eq too to add air and high to my mix then normalize it to 0db in soundforge after thats wot i do neway and it sounds allright no distortion or nothing. |
|
|
| h.vox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Digital Aura
After pouring through the "Exploration of Mastering" sticky above, I have just begun to grasp the importance of Mastering. I have just finished my first complete tune and obviously I was amazed at how terrible the mix sounded as an mp3 unmastered.
My question is... if I had EQed the heck out of each patch and applied compression to the bass and drums before the mixdown would there still be a need to master afterwards? |
mastering is almost always needed - wether it is just a small fiddle with the master eq, or a massive multiband compression with exciters and eqs involved ......
basically it is possible to divide the process of making a track into three parts - sonwriting (writing sequences, drums, arrangement, etc.), mixing (eqing, compression, effects like chorus, delay, reverb, etc.) and mastering.
seems like you skipped the second part :)
therefore, read some books, learn more about how to make a good mix, and make a decent mixdown. do not eq just for the sake of eqing. eq is supposed to correct the clashing frequencies of sounds (between snares and vocals, leads and vocals, basses and kickdrums, etc.), not to destroy the sound. unless you want that to happen. |
|
|
| Dj Thy |
Mastering in the meaning of corrective EQ and compression is not always needed, but that's more an exception than a rule.
You got to keep in mind that if you have sounds that are awesome on their own, that doesn't mean that the whole will be awesome too...
Making a good tune in the technical meaning of the term (so not chord progression and all that) starts from the original conception phase already. Lot's of people still tend to think in "blocks". They create a great bass sound, a great lead sound, and whatever great sounds they can think off. And then they put it together, and they find out all the parts clash with each other.
Right from the beginning you should always have an idea of the end product (yes, I know, that's difficult, if making tunes was that easy, we'd all be supertalents now). You should always keep an eye on the role of that particular instrument in the whole.
Just a plain example : if you make a bassline that takes care of the bass part of your song just fine (duh), it's pretty useless to make a lead part that extends from the very low frequencies to the high ones. That's asking for problems, as your bassline, and the low part of the lead WILL (oh yes, they will) fight with each other (if it isn't in direct phase or frequency terms, it will be in levels. They'll add up together more quickly, causing your meters to peak high faster. Overall, your average level will be lower, so you'll need to compress/limit your mix, to bring the loudness up. Resulting in a less dynamic sound. In this case, it would be wiser to limit the lead to it's main focus frequencies, and let the bass do what it was designed for. You see that a seemingly unimportant decision can have repercussions later on. So, planning from the beginning is quite essential).
Very (very, very) rarely, it happens that a mix is done so well, that mastering isn't needed (except the media related mastering maybe). It takes a very good mastering engineer to admit that he has nothing to add to the mix (most will still do something, even if it's unnecessary, and collect the money). But as I said, it's very rare. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't take care. In real recording studio's (where instruments are still recorded with mics) it has been a common thing to say, while the recording takes place and something doesn't sound right : we'll fix it in the mix. Later on, if it seems that same problem remains a problem, the most uttered sentence becomes : we'll fix it in the mastering. Eventually, the mastering engineer will come to the conclusion : if I want to fix the problem now, I'll alter other parts of the mix that sound good. So, you end up with a problem, and that problem will remain. Maybe if a little more attention was paid at the recording stage, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
My point is : wether you actually record with mics, or you use completely software created stuff, if there are problems, fix them at the source. Don't wait to later. That's only asking for trouble.
I'd say, for EQ : try to get your sounds as right as possible in the creation stage already. In the mixing stage it shouldn't only remain at small corrections/clean up (unless EQ is a major part of your production, of course). And even smaller in the mastering stage.
Dynamics, mostly compressio,, unless it's a integral part of your production (you can use compressors musically too...), try to apply this rule : in the three parts of the production process (creation/mixing/mastering), a little bit in each department always preferred to a lot in one. Of course this applies most with mic recording (as compression at recording happens quite a lot there). There are guys that record with full dynamics, mix without any compression mostly, and they end up with a very dynamic mix (which isn't bad, really). But it doesn't sound as loud as the competition (someone still needs to explain to me why this is bad). So you'll have to compress/limit hard on the final stage. Which will be unnatural. Would you have applied mild compression on the recording stage (to tame rogue levels), and again some mild compression in the mixing stage (to shape and fit in the mix, but gently), will already result in a much tighter mix, but that won't sound overly squashed (if the right settings have been used of course. A compressor is still one of the most misused devices, really). If it still needs more, again a mild compression will certainly do the trick. The result will be more natural. Try it.
Again this means you should already know where you wanna go. If full dynamics is your aim, try to keep compression at a minimum. If you look at purist classical and jazz recordings, VERY minimal eq and compression is tolerated (it's all about placement of the mics. Sometimes the engineer spends hours just to place the mics right. If he did it well, all he has to do is set the levels right). If you start compressing and eq'ing like you would in a "normal" recording, I guarantee you that you'll be beaten to death in no time.
To resume all what I have said above : try to do your best at all stages. If in the end it doesn't sound like you want, ask yourself the question if you can solve it by maybe changing something earlier on. Don't rely on mastering or mixing alone... |
|
|
| SgtFoo |
#1 tip of advice::::.... DO NOT NORMALIZE!!!.... COMPRESS INSTEAD!!!!
there's a plethera of technical reasons for it, so just abide by this rule. |
|
|
| Digital Aura |
Thy...I'm glad you spotted my post. I knew you'd steer me right! Thanks for your voluminous, as usual, and "content-rich" reply!
Isn't it funny that from a n00b's standpoint (and perhaps you can all relate to this when you began) that no matter how many threads I saw titled "the proof is in the mix" or "the necessity of Mixing and Mastering", etc... I assumed that all that hi-tech mumbo jumbo could be avoided. That if I was careful and wasn't sloppy I wouldn't have to come back to those threads o' wisdom. :eek: :confused:
I've spent some time disecting what you said, Thy... and there's no getting around it. My tune sounds muffled/muddy/dull and I am reduced to the ranks of every other n00b producer that has ever posted - having come to the realization that THERE IS NO SKIPPING THE THIRD STEP!!!
| quote: | | your bassline, and the low part of the lead WILL (oh yes, they will) fight with each other (if it isn't in direct phase or frequency terms, it will be in levels. They'll add up together more quickly, causing your meters to peak high faster. |
If I understand this correctly, you're saying that if my bassline and the low's of my pad/lead "fight" each other at say 100Hz, than the overlapping frequencies are summed together? This changes the output level?(I assume it is in dB's?)
| quote: | | Would you have applied mild compression on the recording stage (to tame rogue levels), and again some mild compression in the mixing stage (to shape and fit in the mix, but gently), will already result in a much tighter mix |
So...does this mean you would add an fx such as compressor on the actual BASSLINE patch and another on the DRUMS and then compress it again after you export to wav? I understand there are 3 stages... the first (creation) is obvious, the second (mixing) is physical automation of parameters like panning, volume fades, and FX before you convert to wav format or whatever. THE THIRD stage (MASTERING) is done how? In wav format?
Thanks guys for reading this lengthy thread.:stongue: |
|
|
| moth |
I'd have to say the best advice I ever heard was: "Less is more."
Applying too much compression or EQ will mangle your track up and create audible mistakes. EQ is merely a tool to boost and cut frequencies to allow for a better mix of all the elements in the track. You shouldnt need to cut or boost any more then 3.0 dB, if you find you do, you need to adjust your source. You should also apply any changes while listening to the mix, because thats what matters, how it sounds in the mix. |
|
|
| moth |
Like I mentioned before, the filters you use while in the mix process should be applied sparingly, allowing, as Thy put it, "a much tighter mix". And that is what we are after, right? A nice tight mix where all elements are in harmony with each other. You can achieve a nice, tight mix without throwing a million and one filters into your mixer. If something doesnt need fixing, dont fix it. You need to get to a level where you can hear what is wrong in your mix, and then be able to fix it.
So to answer one of your questions, Yes it is common for a compressor to be placed on the drums, master channel and again during the mastering process. Like the mixing process, the mastering process should not require a whole lot of compression and eq. It is in your best interest to go into the mastering stage with the cleanest and tightest possible mix.
Understand that applying a compressor to a drum track or bassline wont alter the signal until you want it to. Dont get scared if you feel there are too many compressors in your FX Chain.
And always remember that effects are processed in the order you have them in your FX Channel. This is important. |
|
|
| Dj Thy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Digital Aura
If I understand this correctly, you're saying that if my bassline and the low's of my pad/lead "fight" each other at say 100Hz, than the overlapping frequencies are summed together? This changes the output level?(I assume it is in dB's?) |
That all depends. Mostly on phase (not explaining this here, google is the key). Either they will partially cancel each other, or they will add up. The first case will be pretty obvious, as you will seem to lose something. The second case is harder to spot for novices. You'll simply notice that your meters seem to peak much faster in the red, without actually providing you with more volume. That's one of the main reasons a lot of people talk about "cleaning up your instruments with the EQ". You might not hear some frequencies very well, but they still are there and can be taken in account in the overall mix (lots of small additions from residual "crap" of several instruments will still add up to an annoying amount). Then better clean them out.
| quote: | | So...does this mean you would add an fx such as compressor on the actual BASSLINE patch and another on the DRUMS and then compress it again after you export to wav? I understand there are 3 stages... the first (creation) is obvious, the second (mixing) is physical automation of parameters like panning, volume fades, and FX before you convert to wav format or whatever. THE THIRD stage (MASTERING) is done how? In wav format? |
As obvious as the answer will seem : there is no magical formula. It all depends on how you constructed/recorded the sounds, and how you want it to sound in the end.
I've seen tracks where the drum instruments and bassline were compressed individually, then mixed into a group, which was compressed again. And finally the whole mix had another compression applied again. If your mix needs that, it can work. On the other hand I've heard tracks where the only thing that was done was volume balancing and nothing else, and it sounded great also. Experimentation and practice are the key words here.
I recommend that you take a day off, just using a compressor. I don't think you record with mics yet, so you can skip that stage. But use an individual instrument (like a kick or bassline for example). Use a compressor on it and spend your time fooling around. And listen. That's the most important part : listening what it does. Like I said in a previous post already, you have no idea how many people can't use a compressor (they read in a magazine that a good compression for drums might be treshold -20 dB, ratio 5:1 with an attack of 10 ms and a release of 5 ms, and they use that setting. Wrong. The first parameter to get right is the threshold. That setting is dependant on the level you recorded/used your sounds. The ratio will define how hard you will compress, and the attack/release time will define the shape of the sound, which will be unique for each sample). Figure out what each control does, and more importantly how it changes your sound if you tweak this or that parameter. Once you are familiar with that, do the same, but with the compressor inserted on a complete mix (for practice, it doesn't really matter if it's your own, or a commercial mix). Notice that it will react differently (on a complete mix, the compressor will be triggered by the loudest sound, but compress everything). Figure it out also.
-edit- another thing. The usual way to compress something is before the EQ. Experiment with the opposite too, the EQ before the compressor. Completely different reaction. Figure that out to. Once you know how stuff reacts, it's much easier for you to decide what you need to make things like you want.
About the three stages, and mostly for eq/compression :
The actual creative process, or the recording process if you're using accoustic stuff too : that's the part where you create the sounds. You'll either define this by tweaking the synth/sampler parameters. When you record with mics, the placement of the mics is the most important aspect (and the recording room accoustics of course). But it's happening a lot that a little corrective/steering EQ is already applied there (so you record a signal that is already eq'ed). The compressor in this stage is usually used to tame rogue levels, not to massively alter the sound.
The mixing stage : that's where you'll slap everything together. This includes balancing the levels, panning, effects, and the movement/automation of all this stuff too. Actually this stage has to be seen as a creative process also. It's here you'll define the movement in the song, depth, the macrodynamics, (will you mix the choruses louder than the verses? etc...). The technical side of mixing will be to create the impression that you are listening to a coherent package. You started with individual sounds, your aim is to make the listener believe that everything was "recorded" as is (like the band played the complete tune in one time, and you just pressed record). If one sound sounds completely out of space, you've done a bad job.
The mastering stage : this is the most technical stage of them all. It's not here you will define the depth and movement of the song. At most, you'll try to achieve the things you weren't able to do in the mixing stage.
One thing to clear up, what most people refer to as mastering should really be called premastering. Mastering is the stage where the actual pressing/engraving is done (like making the glass masters at the cd pressing plant). The actual job of the premastering engineer originally was to prepare a mix to be fit on a certain medium (for example, vinyl has some constraints, like limited dynamics, care should be taken of bass levels and phase, and high frequency levels). Nowadays, the mastering engineer is usually the guy you go to to make your mix sound "sellable". You don't want your cd/vinyl to sound less loud or muddier than the competitor.
This stage is indeed done on the finished mix. In the pro circles, putting a compressor/eq on the master output while mixing is NOT considered part of mastering (still mixing). A mastering engineer will receive the finished mix (some standard formats exist for that, for your purpose let's just say the wav you exported). Remember that I told you compressors (and eq's too) react differently if you use them on individual stuff, or if you use them on complete mixes? That's why a good mixing engineer (always referring to the way accousting productions are made) isn't necessarily a good mastering engineer, and vice versa. But both know how to operate their gear properly.
That's why it's good to master your own stuff when it's for promotional/fun stuff. But if you are serious about it (you are signed or something like that), and you can afford it, get it done by people that are trained and have experience in the field.
You know, my dream is to become a mastering engineer once. But I must face the fact, either I would have to be an absolute genius, or I won't be doing it before long.
Most mastering engineers are already quite old. They've been recording/mixing engineers for years. They know how sound reacts. But more importantly, they know what to do to make something sound good. A mastering engineer must know a lot of music actually. If a client says to you, I'd want my stuff to sound like a '60s record, you first have to know what that sound is defined of, before you can even start making it sound like that.
A litte about normalisation vs compression : the main difference is that's it's completely different :D. Normalisation is nothing but a gain change (first the signal is analysed to find the loudest peak, then a gain is applied on the COMPLETE signal so that that loudest peak will get the value you wanted. It's nothing but gain, so no compression at all). If loudness increase is what you want, compressors/limiters are more suited yes. Again, it depends on your aim. Normalizing is a process that was added to simplify your job. Don't automatically normalize all your samples. If you would raise your fader a little more, it will be the same result... |
|
|
| Massive84 |
now this is what i usually wonder my self
i spend most of my time mixing, EQing panning mainly, i hardly compress only kick and clap, and thats it..
mainchannel gets an eq, with some boosting of low/mid and high frequencies, i don't watch numbers just do it till the mix sounds warm and allive enough.
EQ usually the lead, kick, clap, prc bass..*core of the tune* here also i don't look to numbers do it by ear.
same with panning by ear..
eventually i get decent mix..
now my question what should i do in mastering, ya i can read articles and stuff, but i rather do it by ear, how do i know i need to boost this or cut that? and what will a compressor do to the mix in external mastering? some say don't it ruins dynamics some say it gives dynamics...
now, what does dynamics mean exactly? because i don't think many know what that SHOULD mean to music, because i sure don't..
there for i hardly master, since i just don't know.
i never saw anyone posting 2 small samples, good mixed, but 1 masterd and 1 not masterd, i wanne see someone do this so, i could get the idea a bit more about what mastering does..yes wrods explain, but music is sound, and il rather hear it, than read it :) |
|
|
| Etherium |
Think about this before you start EQing. An acoustic guitar player records his guitar and has to make it fit within the context of a mix using EQ.
An EDM producer synthesizes sounds (for the most part) and can use any number of means on the sythesizer itself to make that particular part fit within a mix, filters being the primary means. You can use a high pass filter then in series use a band reject or whatever your imagination comes up with. Filters sound much more organic than EQ because of the subtle way in which they attenuate the signal and add character to it.
So what I'm saying is, EQ shouldn't be that much of an issue for us except for tidying up here and there (percussion and the fixing the occasional problem).
EQ should be perceived as a last resort. |
|
|
|
|
