|
New to mastering (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sixofour.604 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
adding a 3-5 threshold of compression and limiting the thing to a decent volume. |
Couldn't you do that before rendering the wav? |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
Couldn't you do that before rendering the wav? |
Nah i like to see whats going on with the wav, spikes and such.. it may sound wierd but by looking at the wav i can pretty much "see" how much compression, limiting is needed.. also to make sure im not dealing with a brick as an end product. Also if there are huge spikes at places i may go back to the project to correct it.
And of course, by having a wav file i can much easier do different takes if needed without exporting it all again. |
|
|
| mfitterer1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
mfitterer1, in regards to these comments:
"We are speaking about edm here. The compositions in 99% of the tracks, even the best, are simple. It's dance music. It's supposed to be simple, not an orchestral piece.
While there is still a lot of room for creativity in Trance, or any genre, it is all about how things sound. Creativity shouldn't even be brought up."
If you're talking about making money by creating music that sounds great but is instantly forgotten and never listened to again, fine - some people see it as a job, something to do to pay the bills. But you're not talking about classic songs with classic hooks here - yes, 9pm (til I come) contains a simple melody, but there's a reason it's so distinctive and memorable where the vast majority of trance songs aren't.
"The reason I find mastering to be the most important aspect of the process is entailed in a quote someone posted earlier. It said something about it being 10% of the equation but taking up 90% of the time."
You're taking this quote out of context, and a bit of thought would alert you to this - even if you get a complete song finished within 2 hours, no mastering engineer is going to spend 18 hours mastering that song. Mastering doesn't take up 90% of the total time. This quote was referring entirely to the processes within mastering, not mixing and mastering.
"You can get a track to the final stages and then take it several different ways depending on how you want it to be felt."
Are you recommending that, after the "final stages", the artist then "chooses which way to take the song"? Can you name some producers who wait until this stage to make decisions of this magnitude?
"I'm also not surprised at all people have gone nuts over the statement. But I look at every name of everyone who has and see nobody who has continually impressed me with how their tracks sound."
Could you please either post before and after clips of your songs, to show that, even with songs which sound amazing before mastering, mastering will still lift them several notches, or, as above, provide the names (and tunes) of engineers who have gone on record to state that they left some big creative decisions to the mastering engineer, and that the mastered version took their song in a different direction?
"This is an ultra competitive industry and it's funny that people give mastering so little importance. Any little thing that can improve your finished product should be taken. In the end most people just don't have the patience to see their projects to where they should end up."
Mastering is important. Most of us don't have acoustically perfect studios or full-range high end loudspeakers. When people are releasing a commercial product, I agree, take it to a mastering engineer and let them know what you want done to the sound, what your vision is (by providing reference songs, for example). Mastering will make mixes sound more "correct", but if they make them sound noticeably different, then make sure the mastering engineer tells you why they felt the need to make those changes, so you can learn and improve your mixing skills in future.
I think we agree overall, regardless of where the percentages of sound design/mixing/mastering end up. As long as producers take full responsibility for their sound, and do everything they can do to achieve it at the sound design/mixing stage, then effectively relay their vision for their sound to the mastering engineer, then the music we listen to should be of great quality. The alternative is that people underestimate the sound design/ mixing stages, thinking "the mastering engineer will fix all the issues". And that's not going to be in the best interests of attaining fantastic sound quality. |
1 - I am not talking about making money, that is and never will be a goal of mine as far as music. I am stating that in trance, the music is simple. It's intended that way. That doesn't mean simple things can't be brilliant, it just means it's simple.
2 - What I mean by the 90/10 comment, is that I will get my mix done, and then pretty much all of my time spent on tracks is working with my chain on my master and tweaking things to where they sound just as intended. This is done simultaneously with post-production mixing as I like to call it. Sometimes some of the things my chain im working with does improves areas while making other areas weaker, so I will go back and make a tweak in the mix and then back to the mastering.
3 - I'm saying that you can make people feel different things with your songs. Some songs are meant to be quieter, some songs have more mids or highs in them. Believe it or not an eq on the master IS a part of mastering. Second of all i'm not talking about sending my stuff out to houses to do the grunt work of music. This is why in over a year of producing only a few samples have left my studio. Mastering is a process, and it is extremely difficult. I am lucky that I have the money to put into some very nice plug ins that made it much easier to learn and much easier to achieve what I want. I know that a mastering engineer would be able to do more with my tracks then I can, just based on the equipment being used, but you'll have to understand how amazing it is to listen to a copy of a track from 6 months ago (my first 6 months producing) and then the same track right now and see the huge difference in the sound. Mastering is easily the biggest challenge/roadblock I have had in my short time producing and that's the whole reason I do this. Challenge. Goals. Accomplishing. LEARNING. I guess I'm just more motivated than others, meh.
4 - Music is individual. I'd rather save all of the money spent on engineers and such and put it towards purchases that will help ME be better at mastering. I fully plan one day to do other peoples mastering. While I do this for the love I will also be making this a career, and mastering will be very nice to supplement the income.
If you'd like anyone can send me a track and I'll show you what I can do to make a track change. Obviously I need something at least average. |
|
|
| mfitterer1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
That's mixing. Anything done on the mixer [mix-er] is mixing. Mastering specificly IS taking the exported audio and running it though an audio editor. Putting limiters and stuff on your master channel is part of mixing.
From Wikipedia:
"Mastering, a form of audio post-production, is the process of preparing and transferring recorded audio from a source containing the final mix to a data storage device (the master); the source from which all copies will be produced (via methods such as pressing, duplication or replication). The format of choice these days is digital masters, although analog masters, such as audio tapes, are still being used by the manufacturing industry and a few engineers who specialize in analog mastering." |
Uhh, newsflash buddy, your master channel can be a "source containing the final mix".
I don't understand it just seems like you're hating on the terminology of "mastering". You're not disagreeing with anything done, just what it's called. Trolling at it's finest. |
|
|
| sixofour.604 |
No, the problem is with the idea that you have to export your music then send it to some stranger in order to have it sound good. I am sure you and the others don't mean it that way, but that is still what many people think.
Mastering isn't some magical stage in production that makes good things happen. As I mentioned before, mastering should be transparent. You don't [shouldn't] HEAR a difference between a mastered track and unmastered. So the idea that "this will sound better after its mastered" is a crutch.
Also, the audio is recorded from "source that contains final mix" [master channel] and sent to the mastering stage, that means an exported audio file. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by mfitterer1
I guess I'm just more motivated than others, meh.
If you'd like anyone can send me a track and I'll show you what I can do to make a track change. Obviously I need something at least average. |
I'll make a reference to your latest post about 604's "trolling". A lot of times he does appear to be trolling, but it's not the case here. Processes on the master channel, for a lot of mix engineers, do not equate to mastering. Engineers used SSL main buss compression on many classic albums - applying that compression to the overall sound was part of the mixing process.
Likewise, these days, when mix engineers put EQs, compressors, limiters and so on on their master channel, most would call that a part of mixing. To me, mastering is about an objective pair of ears to catch any mix irregularities. Potentially by that definition it's impossible for a person to master their own songs, since it can always be argued that these are mix decisions.
Regarding your motivation - it's good that you're motivated. Many of us put in a lot of time each week to improve what we do. It's good to see. But this topic wasn't about motivation - I'm sure many people are very motivated to improve their mixing technique while not being at all motivated to improve their mastering technique (since it can be argued that we can't master our own songs).
Regarding the last sentence of what I quoted from you - if as a mastering engineer you think it's your job to "change" the songs you receive, you're going to find it hard to attract clients. When I have songs mastered, I sit in on the session with the engineer and take reference material along, to show the engineer what I want done.
The few times I haven't done this I've been disappointed, because the mastering engineer has a preconceived concept of how things should sound. Mastering isn't about getting creative, it's about making things correct and giving the client what they want. If they're after the "Activa sound" but you take their song more in the direction of the "Stoneface and Terminal sound" then you haven't done your job properly. |
|
|
| mfitterer1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
I'll make a reference to your latest post about 604's "trolling". A lot of times he does appear to be trolling, but it's not the case here. Processes on the master channel, for a lot of mix engineers, do not equate to mastering. Engineers used SSL main buss compression on many classic albums - applying that compression to the overall sound was part of the mixing process.
Likewise, these days, when mix engineers put EQs, compressors, limiters and so on on their master channel, most would call that a part of mixing. To me, mastering is about an objective pair of ears to catch any mix irregularities. Potentially by that definition it's impossible for a person to master their own songs, since it can always be argued that these are mix decisions.
Regarding your motivation - it's good that you're motivated. Many of us put in a lot of time each week to improve what we do. It's good to see. But this topic wasn't about motivation - I'm sure many people are very motivated to improve their mixing technique while not being at all motivated to improve their mastering technique (since it can be argued that we can't master our own songs).
Regarding the last sentence of what I quoted from you - if as a mastering engineer you think it's your job to "change" the songs you receive, you're going to find it hard to attract clients. When I have songs mastered, I sit in on the session with the engineer and take reference material along, to show the engineer what I want done.
The few times I haven't done this I've been disappointed, because the mastering engineer has a preconceived concept of how things should sound. Mastering isn't about getting creative, it's about making things correct and giving the client what they want. If they're after the "Activa sound" but you take their song more in the direction of the "Stoneface and Terminal sound" then you haven't done your job properly. |
Well apparently people's definitions of mastering are inclusive of mixing so that throws this whole thread into the ter. Me personally I feel it is mastering. It's the same thing that an engineer would do if you brought the track to -5 and sent it off to him. Just because it's on the master bus and I'd rather export once than twice has no bearing.
Also, my goal with mastering songs is to take them to their peak. As I referenced earlier this is different with every track. You have to listen to what the track is telling you it needs, and then do that. If they want something that goes against what the track is telling me then they can go find someone else. Like I said this isn't about money so if someone doesn't like what I can do then they can go somewhere else, no offense would be taken. |
|
|
| Raphie |
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Also opinions are like s: everybody has got one. here is mine, to close things off on my side:
- EDM is not "simple" music
- Mixing is not mastering
- Mixing can include engineering considerations which will lead to a better master
- mastering is about making your track compatible and translate well on different systems.
- You will need a calibrated room in order to do that properly.
- Just slamming a compressor & limiter, T-Racks or Ozone of a Finalizer on your main bus, during of after mixdown is not mastering.
- If one has no clue what else needs to be considered during that process, one should not make bold statements about stuff that he clearly does not fully comprehend. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by mfitterer1
You have to listen to what the track is telling you it needs, and then do that. If they want something that goes against what the track is telling me then they can go find someone else. Like I said this isn't about money so if someone doesn't like what I can do then they can go somewhere else, no offense would be taken. |
Please, if you're considering mastering, ask people for reference tracks, for their vision of what they're trying to achieve. If 90% of trance songs have big, punchy bass sounds (these figures are purely made up), but this client really likes a lot of the 10% of songs where the bass isn't as prominent, that's something you'll need to be aware of, to be able to give the client what they want. Otherwise you may think "this bass region is a bit weak, the song is telling me it wants more bass".
Please go primarily on what the client is telling you they need, and after that on what the song is telling you it needs. Communication is key. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
- mastering is about making your track compatible and translate well on different systems.
- You will need a calibrated room in order to do that properly.
- Just slamming a compressor & limiter, T-Racks or Ozone of a Finalizer on your main bus, during of after mixdown is not mastering.
|
Yeah sure, but if you really know your monitors.. you know how other tracks sounds on them and hence you mix relative to that and get pretty damn close.
Then you double check your track on your iPod or something else to be sure.
I agree with the definition though, however i dont think its needed for the kind of music we make. |
|
|
| mfitterer1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Also opinions are like s: everybody has got one. here is mine, to close things off on my side:
- EDM is not "simple" music
- Mixing is not mastering
- Mixing can include engineering considerations which will lead to a better master
- mastering is about making your track compatible and translate well on different systems.
- You will need a calibrated room in order to do that properly.
- Just slamming a compressor & limiter, T-Racks or Ozone of a Finalizer on your main bus, during of after mixdown is not mastering.
- If one has no clue what else needs to be considered during that process, one should not make bold statements about stuff that he clearly does not fully comprehend. |
I pity anyone who pays you to master their tracks when you can't even do a good job on your own. But I guess that may just be the composition.....
The number one rule of music is there are no rules, and your post quoted above comes off as you know everything, which is impossible in an objective field.
Also people don't listen to those who talk the talk but can't walk the walk.
You kinda pissed me off with the post above, so let's have a bet. Name your price and let's have someone volunteer a track so you can eat a big face full of your own foot;-) |
|
|
| Raphie |
I think that's each to them own. If you can learn how to produce a decent mix then learning to master is no rocket science
from my perspective it should not really matter whether the artist does it himself or he goes to an engineer. As long as the compatibility check is done.
The biggest pitfall was mentioned above: I don't trust engineers, or i look at my waveforms in order to make compression decisions. On the one hand this is good to conserve you vision, but what sounds good in your ears might not necessarily be the best engineering decision for general translation. What if you have hearing problems? bad ear response, hyped monitors, bass cancellation on your sweetspot (too much bass in your mix) standing waves without proper trapping, not enough bass in your mix. etc etc.....
a 40hz sine needs about 11m meters of length to roll of, if your room is shorter than that, (i would love to have such a big bedroom) you need a lot of bass trapping of offset standing waves. One cannot control the environment where the track is going to be played, but there are conventions and if you stick to them, and where you are played stick to them, in general you have the highest probability to sound like YOU intended it to sound.
Everything is relative, if you produce tracks just for yourself and don't release, you should not want to spend too much on mastering, but if a label is investing in you and wants to send their latest and greatest out to their A-list it better sticks, because otherwise no support. |
|
|
|
|
