|
House/Trance Mastering & Mastering Effects Chains - Advanced Users (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Raphie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
yup but essential. Even if it is a quick check. Like using a sub as well. I sometimes just have the sub with nothing else. And if you know your headphones, they can be incredibly useful. Well if you don't know your headphones, they are kinda pointless i guess is what i meant.
you need to spend a good amount of time listening to reference mixes doing A/B. Doing white noise boost and cut exercises .... |
agreed |
|
|
| fluxburn |
| So many different ways to skin this cat. Some folks talk about always checking a mono mix, then you dudes talking about switching the stereo field. Headphones just for stereo? Get some nice monitors with good imaging and you really have to put the speakers in the right place for the room. |
|
|
| Raphie |
| quote: | Originally posted by fluxburn
So many different ways to skin this cat. Some folks talk about always checking a mono mix, then you dudes talking about switching the stereo field. Headphones just for stereo? Get some nice monitors with good imaging and you really have to put the speakers in the right place for the room. |
I'm not talking switching the stereofield, but the stereofield on headphones is skewed
that's why room and monitors remain most important
mono checking is good to see if your mix holds it own on a mono ipad speaker, but is not really necessary anymore |
|
|
| Viking Pillager |
| quote: | Originally posted by fluxburn
I just bought some books on music production and bob katz mastering book. Like you lived produced for decades at this point. I have several approaches to mastering so far. I mix and master each song differently.
Sometimes I'll mix a song, eq and compress it so well, that I don't even use a multiband compressor or limiter on the track. Other times I'll just use extensive compression in the mix and then use a limiter/ multi band compressor to boost the volume at the end.
I think the biggest deal is just mixing the tracks. Of course after you learn how to mix better and better, it becomes part of the composing of the music. That's why so many who make electronic music might as well just master it also. Most mastering is digital today anyway. I mean of course buying a $5,000 compressor or 4 and processing through those will have some benefit, but in the end you digitally master all the levels and meter it.
I've read some stuff from mixing engineers, and while they have certain tricks they like, for instance on dude never uses reverb, only delay. Then again you can use delays like reverb. Seriously if you compress, eq each track and use sidechain compression all over the place, then eventually go into a series of multiband compressors and limiters then you can get a track as flat as possible.
Also if you are getting very precise, you can have compressor settings for different sections of the track and then adjust the volume levels so the sections sound at similar levels. I had a buddy who used to process tracks literally by cutting them by frequency and then working with those sections of a track independently. |
I would never use reverb as a mastering effect. Neither with delay. Although the beginning refractory stages of most reverbs are nearly identical to that of basic delay algorithms so in that sense if you DID want to use one or the other, I think delay would be the way to go. Reverb COULD work on a breakdown part if it was just vocals and synths.. but as soon as percussion started coming in there would be real trouble imho. I wouldnt want those effects destroying quality punch drumlines.
I THINK ILL BUY FOUR OF THE $5k compressors though! ;)
Mastering individual sections of the song by frequency sounds awesome in theory and completely ridiculous in practice. But this is probably because I have no professional experience mastering - and would rather spend my hours on the mix itself than just tinkering with the mastering end so much. I would imagine if you did this, however, it could end up being quite difficult to mesh the sections together without a noticable change in dynamics/amplitude etc. But in theory this sounds like maybe the best call yet. I just dont know if its realistic at this stage of the game. Thoughts on this? Maybe I am overlooking some simple principle here.
Bob Katz - do you recommend this book? amazon? title? ive bought a few production books in the past - one of the best was powertools for reason (for any fellow reasonfreaks out there). |
|
|
| Viking Pillager |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
I use cubase 6.54 / Wavelab 7.0.2 Would tend to agree there fluxburn, Katz is a good read.
But cut up a mixdown in 3 bands? Multiband in general is something one would like to avoid as much ad possible. A lot of tinkering just ruins the cohesion of a track, sense of space and depth will diminish, people will try to compensate with some M/S wideners and at the end it's one big inflated mushy mess.
If anything religious from my side, it's really that the track dictates what's required, not the process. Also the integrity of the track should be maintained. Mastering ofcourse can be used as a colourbox too, but I would again prefer "corrections where needed" rather than "colouring"
If multiband would be required i would always opt for getting the stems first. One will generally get better results. |
I havent had much positive experience with multibanding at the mastering stage either. In the mix it can help with individual sounds and their fullness relative to other sounds - but parallel compression also does this well.
Viewing mastering like a coloring box with crayons is brilliant. Filling in the holes without going over the 0dB line. Brilliant raph |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| it is a classic. One that has knowledge people probably source from. Unlike those production books which are probably just bull you find on the net. And multi-band can work great in EDM. The tool was pretty much a mastering tool until plugins became available. The people advising against it are not usually making EDM. Same with people adding reverb. There is more music out there than dub. People say naughty things about it because it made it possible to make things really really loud. |
|
|
| Viking Pillager |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
By what I've written above, you'll by now should know what the purpose should be of mastering. If you expect a "silver bullet" treatment below to seriously beef up your tracks, read no further. As there is none
If you expect to be told which frequencies to boost or cut, read no further, those are different for each track. You might have standing waves in your studio, Thinking you've just shared a pounding monster, reality might be that your track is bass light.
Other way around too: you might think your track is tight, but it's really bass heavy, but because of cone size, or headphones you totally missed the plot.
bottom line: you can not control what you can't hear. Hence I'm not going to tell you what to do.
So what can you do at home:
- Use REW (Room EQ Wizard) to measure your room, use 1/3rd octave smoothing to not fully go crazy and focus on 20hz > 10Khz
- If possible apply some bass trapping you'll need quite an amount of cubic inches to make an impact here, easily like 6-10 packs of rockwool (not slices, packs!)foam doesn't work for trapping, but it might work for diffusion/absorption of mid high freqs
- listen to reference tracks - A good place to start to learn what "good" sounds like in your room, again it might sound like in your room. It's not the track, it's your room > acknowledging this this skewed tonal reality should be your baseline.
- then ask yourself what's the difference between the reference track and yours? yours might probably sound "better" in your room already.
But you will need to adjust.
- I will not comment further on headphones and aural simulations. You might like them, I see easy pitfalls. for one: Harmonics sound different than fundamentals, you can not master on headphones, you might have a different opinion, or have all kind of legitimate reasons why you are tied to headphones, but in the end you can't expect headphone mixing and mastering decisions to translate well on every system (remember the goal is not to have it sound "phat" on your setup, but the track to translate well on ANY system)
Would you agree so far? are we aligned?
I would really like to see your view on above before I continue to the tools section |
I dont expect any silver bullets, I was just curious about your typical 1, 2, 3, etc. approach when it comes to mastering a typical track sent to you, or one by you - although I would imagine your tracks require, on average, completely different treatment due to the fact you have the perfect studio room, than with almost any one elses tracks. This is all great advice though. Couple questions though:
1. What is REW and where does one acquire such software?
2. Obviuously cutting and boosting stock frequencies as a rule is impossible - although I have been noticing at least with my mixes that if I apply as a general principle a eq cut at +16khz and -31hz in a tapered fashion it seems to do my mixes alot of good - I imagine this is because of how I am mixing my tracks via my alesis 620s/vrm box w/ senn 280pro 64ohms. Is this logical? Or am I being silly or what?
3. Totally agree on the plot and sounding right on every system not just mine - I am always comparing it on other peoples systems, including a couple friends who have studio setups too around town. And ill force it hard at guitar center on occasion lmao. Are there any frequency plot software you recommend for helping alleviate the fact that I have less than perfect gear at the moment. Also, if I were to upgrade headphones/monitors to the next level - what would you recommend?
I totally undersdtand the concept that a well mastered pro track that I could buy on beatport or audiojelly may actually sound worse on the system I have vs. my tracks - not because they arent mastered right, but because of the inconsistencies in my own setup - this is a really good point, that I think a lot of people neglect in their music production process. I have no spent much A/B time since setting up my new studio as I was busy pounding out music while I had some free trials on things - so now I think its time to hunker down and get serious on this treatment thing.
Rockwool - is this a homedepot purchase? |
|
|
| Viking Pillager |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
it is a classic. One that has knowledge people probably source from. Unlike those production books which are probably just bull you find on the net. And multi-band can work great in EDM. The tool was pretty much a mastering tool until plugins became available. The people advising against it are not usually making EDM. Same with people adding reverb. There is more music out there than dub. People say naughty things about it because it made it possible to make things really really loud. |
Ok I am going to order it with my next paycheck I think.. For EDM Multibanding as a mastering or in the mix? I find it works great in the mix - but have had mixed success with it as a mastering effect. Ozone's is decent though. It often left me feeling idk it took some of the punch away I felt.
WHO DOESNT LIKE NAUGHTY |
|
|
| Viking Pillager |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
i find headphones actually pretty essential in mixing. You can't do anything about hrtf issues using monitors that having headphones for a quick check is invaluable. You are in the dark using only monitors 100% of the time no matter what you are using. And consider the fact that most people are listening on headphones, it is now an important tool more than ever. |
huge line. I think monitors are important too but, I actually get more fine tuning done via headphones - just cant pick out the subtle flaws as easily - I just need that sound close to my ear so I can also feel the dynamics reverberating from the phones. I support Braile monitoring with headphones AND monitors allday. |
|
|
| Viking Pillager |
| quote: | Originally posted by itsamemario
I am not trying to be an or anything, but I listened to one of your tracks, and I'm not gonna say don't try to master your tracks because you're not a mastering engineer, I'm gonna say don't try to master your tracks because they are not yet in a state ready to be mastered. If you catch my drift. Mastering is something you do at the very end of the process. Your tracks do not sound finished.
And like Missy Z said, a properly mixed down track shouldn't need any mastering. |
LOL this made me laugh - I appreciate your candor and politeness. May I ask which track you are referring to - and perhaps you could make a comment on it as to what you feel is not "finished?" And if that goes for all four, all the more advice sought and needed! Thanks for the advice thus far. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Viking Pillager
huge line. I think monitors are important too but, I actually get more fine tuning done via headphones - just cant pick out the subtle flaws as easily - I just need that sound close to my ear so I can also feel the dynamics reverberating from the phones. I support Braile monitoring with headphones AND monitors allday. |
the only advantage they bring which is rather important is that you don't get reflections and hrtf issues. Thats it. And every studio has some degree of standing waves and well everyone has a head. But better dynamics or EQ unless you are judging the EQ away from any distortion the issues mentioned might add won't be better on headphones.
Chances are you are just putting them really loud. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Viking Pillager
Ok I am going to order it with my next paycheck I think.. For EDM Multibanding as a mastering or in the mix? I find it works great in the mix - but have had mixed success with it as a mastering effect. Ozone's is decent though. It often left me feeling idk it took some of the punch away I felt.
WHO DOESNT LIKE NAUGHTY |
both. It is used everywhere. But there is no point in telling you where because you don't seem to understand the point. And as someone mentioned, you haven't had mixed success. It has been consistently at a level that most would say is the opposite of good.
so relax. Accept that you suck and just learn one tool by using it and exploring it and stop worrying when to use things when you don't understand what it is they do. |
|
|
|
|
