Mastering Question

Hey guys. For do it yourself mastering do you just stick your plugins on the master track at the end of the mixing process or do you render to mp3 and then run the mp3 through the mastering plugins? I know if I have to ask that I am nowhere near being able to effectively master but I do like to mess with things.

Thanks,

Dan

I think 'whatever works with the gear you have' is probably the sensible answer.
I use Digital Performer 4.6 on a G4 Mac with the computer FULL of RAM,
i run any effects on each track as needed, i usually use one Reverb setting overall (to tie things together) but run it on an Aux track so can control it independently on each track then the only thing i have on the 'master out's' would be a fairly hefty EQ and then the L1 limiter.
I always master them to 'Sound designer II' or 'Aiff' format depending on where they are going.

If i'm making an MP3 i will start a new session, import the finished track, make any adjustments i think neccesary and export as Mp3.
If i think the machine is getting a bit bogged i might bounce some 'stem' tracks together, acoustic guitars or drums etc. i will bounce them down to a stereo pair to lighten the load.

Thats just MY system though and i'm sure we all have our own little quirks, i am after 'consistency' in my recordings so often make lots of notes on paper or on screen, there's nothing worse than thinking, "well, i did it yesterday and it sounded great, now, how the *&^& did i do it ?".

I was the part time 'Mac guy' at the academy of art in Cambridge for awhile and the students were constantly told "Keep a digital diary", if i had any advice to give that would be it, if someone likes 'that' sound you need to be able to re-do it.

Apart from that ----- if it sounds like you want then it's all good !

compress (to mp3) last

Thanks guys, so it seems there is more than one way to skin a cat.

John, I have been using that reverb trick and it does add life to a recording.

Dan

Hey guys. For do it yourself mastering do you just stick your plugins on the master track at the end of the mixing process or do you render to mp3 and then run the mp3 through the mastering plugins? I know if I have to ask that I am nowhere near being able to effectively master but I do like to mess with things.


Dan,

I mix to AIFF then have a separate process for mastering, which is send it to a mastering engineer in a separate studio.

I do however master projects that I haven't mixed for people who are on a budget.
I am not a professional mastering engineer- I track and mix, but simply having a new set of ears in a new acoustic environment is sometimes all you need to get a track to a releasable level.

The whole point of mastering it to get a second set of ears and most importantly in a separate acoustic space to address issues that are specific to the room you record in.
As a general rule you should NEVER master in the same room as you mix, unless that room is incredibly well designed and as close as acoustically flat as possible.

Say, for example, you mix in a room that is 23 x 16 x 10ft.
You end up with room modes at the following frequencies:

http://www.realtraps.com/modecalc-win.gif

See the build up around 300-400hz?
That is going to mean the room is resonant at those frequencies.
You are likely to hear those frequencies more in that room and when you eq you will end up with a hole (because you will have compensated for them) in your recording.

A mastering engineer will have a much better room than you with a frequency response that is flatter and will hear this (if he is 1/2 decent) and be able to compensate for this.

What is your current mastering chain?
Apologies if this sounds overly didactic but mastering is not just about "making it louder", compressing it to sound bigger and trying to have it compete with commercial recordings.

It is a process whereby a separate acoustic environment and an experienced mastering professional can provide "musical balance" to a track- to redress the acoustic issues and mixing decisions that ultimately detract from the quality of the recording.
IMHO this cannot be done by 99.99999% of mixing engineers when they are working on their own material.

I'll offer to back this up by offering to master a track of yours with my mastering chain in my acoustically balanced studio- you can decide for yourself if I am talking out my backside.
I'll even give you a point by point breakdown of what I did and why I did it.

That was a little long winded, I know- and I am not trying to discourage you from experimenting but I would like to dispel some very common preconceptions people have about this process.

Mastering is more art than science but I'll outline my process here.
I take a track that is usually a 24bit 96khz AIFF and put it into Protools HD.
My HD rig has a lot of IO on it and all the outboard is connected so I can aux it into the Protools rig.
There is a patchbay in place so if I want to connect two pieces of hardware in series I can do it without having to pass through multiple A/D/A stages.

For compression I have my TDM plugins (Compressorbank, Sony Oxford compressor mostly) a stereo pair of
Empirical Labs Distressors, a Focusrite Red 3 and Compounder and a couple of cheaper units.

EQ I have some TDM plugins (Massenburg EQ, Filterbanks and a couple of others) and a Manley Massive Passive

There are some metering tools I use (Waves Paz and a rackmount strobe tuner) and some outboard effects (Lexicon PCM90, MPX1, Ensoniq DP Pro).

There are some other bits and pieces that might get used but that is the bulk of it.

Most plugins are unsuitable for mastering to any acceptable degree- I can't think of a time when I've used a Waves compressor or EQ for mastering with the exception of L1/2/3 which get their own section.

L1 (and 2 or 3) really changed the game- in the hands of someone who is experienced they can provide the missing bit of life to a track. Mostly though, they are overused and end up destroying the track- removing the dynamic range AND SOUNDING VERY SHOUTY ALL THE TIME.
Use with caution.

Anyway, I am happy to master a track and provide you with some real world advice as to what I did in that specific instance- let me know if you want to take me up on that.

Thanks Jim, I will absolutely take you up on that offer. Let me get my s*** together on my end and I will PM you. So you would want an AIFF file? I will have to figure out how to send it to you.

Also, maybe I should post the original file on Soundclick and then we can post the mastered take so everyone can benefit from your knowledge.

Great post Jim, you addressed some issues I didn't consider.

Dan

Thanks Jim, I will absolutely take you up on that offer. Let me get my s*** together on my end and I will PM you. So you would want an AIFF file? I will have to figure out how to send it to you.

Also, maybe I should post the original file on Soundclick and then we can post the mastered take so everyone can benefit from your knowledge.

Great post Jim, you addressed some issues I didn't consider.

Dan

Hi Dan,

I always balk at making those kind of posts because 1) I know I sound a bit pompous when I do. 2) I'm really not like that. 3) I don't want it to sound like I am trawling for work.

I have my own websites with FTP- I'll create you an account and you can pop it up there.
We can post both versions for sure.
What if anyone else wants to have a go at it too- maybe we can turn this into a bit of a science experiment?

I have a couple of days next week where I am not doing much so if we can do it by then I can spend a bit more time on it.

Two more things I forgot to mention in my novel above.

1. Multiple sets of monitors. A very important component.
I have 3 sets of monitors- Some Genelecs, Some Dynaudio's and some B&W stereo speakers.
There are also boom boxes in the studio and in my house for reference mixing and I routinely go for a drive just to hear the tracks in the car stereo.

2. Remixing. Not in the "techno" remixing sense.
I have had mastering engineers suggest to me that I go back and mix tracks again when work hasn't been up to par.
Usually it is issues of bass management (I often mix bass heavy) or phase problems on the top end due to over-processing. Very important as a mix engineer to not be precious about it, listen to what they say and then get on with the job.

That would be a fun experiment. If anyone else wants a go at it, let me know.
I will finalize the mix later tonight. The song is Bob Dylan's "I Shall Be Released".

Dan

For those of you still following along, the mp3 is now posted on my Soundclick page:

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=6495269

When Jim has completed the mastering process I will post that version as well.

If anyone would still like to take a crack at mastering the song please let me know and I will send you a copy. I think it would be great to compare the different results.

Dan

Very nice.

Great job (although I may be accused of being biased!)....

barrel

Great job (although I may be accused of being biased!)....

barrel

Folks, I give you my brother. About time you found this place! Now go buy a tele.

Dan

Folks, I give you my brother. About time you found this place! Now go buy a tele.

Dan

You meant to say BIG brother....

BUY a tele? Can't I just borrow one of yours?!!!

You meant to say BIG brother....

BUY a tele? Can't I just borrow one of yours?!!!

Of course. But more importantly you can post a picture of my Les Paul.

Oh yeah, and find the recent thread on Silvertones.

Dan

Dear Mr. Richmond,

Your posts are very edifying and not pompous in the least. Please keep them coming, as these are the most coherent posts on mastering that I have encountered on the www.

I have a specific question on your item 2 below about remixing. 1) Are you talking about re-mixing a stereo pair of tracks, or the set of "raw tracks that make up the pair, or both?

2) Please elaborate a bit on this, "Usually it is issues of bass management (I often mix bass heavy) or phase problems on the top end due to over-processing. Very important as a mix engineer to not be precious about it, listen to what they say and then get on with the job".

3) When does mixing or re-mixing become mastering?

I'd also like to take a swing at mastering Dan's song, for the education it will bring.

Sincerely yours,

Bonneville Bruce

Hi Dan,

I always balk at making those kind of posts because 1) I know I sound a bit pompous when I do. 2) I'm really not like that. 3) I don't want it to sound like I am trawling for work.

I have my own websites with FTP- I'll create you an account and you can pop it up there.
We can post both versions for sure.
What if anyone else wants to have a go at it too- maybe we can turn this into a bit of a science experiment?
...

Two more things I forgot to mention in my novel above.

1. Multiple sets of monitors. A very important component.
I have 3 sets of monitors- Some Genelecs, Some Dynaudio's and some B&W stereo speakers.

2. Remixing. Not in the "techno" remixing sense.
I have had mastering engineers suggest to me that I go back and mix tracks again when work hasn't been up to par.
Usually it is issues of bass management (I often mix bass heavy) or phase problems on the top end due to over-processing. Very important as a mix engineer to not be precious about it, listen to what they say and then get on with the job.

+1 about Jim. I was never put off by any of his posts.

Bruce, as soon as I figure out how to get the track to Jim I will get it to you. Thanks for playing along.

Dan



Dear Mr. Richmond,

Your posts are very edifying and not pompous in the least. Please keep them coming, as these are the most coherent posts on mastering that I have encountered on the www.

I have a specific question on your item 2 below about remixing. 1) Are you talking about re-mixing a stereo pair of tracks, or the set of "raw tracks that make up the pair, or both?

2) Please elaborate a bit on this, "Usually it is issues of bass management (I often mix bass heavy) or phase problems on the top end due to over-processing. Very important as a mix engineer to not be precious about it, listen to what they say and then get on with the job".

3) When does mixing or re-mixing become mastering?

I'd also like to take a swing at mastering Dan's song, for the education it will bring.

Sincerely yours,

Bonneville Bruce

+1 on what Bonneville Bruce said...
that was the most coherent explanation of mastering I've ever seen in 25ish years of recording. Back in "the day", when mastering was about getting stuff onto vinyl, no-one would tell you what they were doing. It was like some secret society!! In the digital realm, it's a different ballgame, but still a bit of a black art.
I'll take your advice onboard next time I do some recording.
Thanks Jim!!!

... I love this forum.....

Dear Mr. Richmond,

Your posts are very edifying and not pompous in the least. Please keep them coming, as these are the most coherent posts on mastering that I have encountered on the www.

I have a specific question on your item 2 below about remixing. 1) Are you talking about re-mixing a stereo pair of tracks, or the set of "raw tracks that make up the pair, or both?

2) Please elaborate a bit on this, "Usually it is issues of bass management (I often mix bass heavy) or phase problems on the top end due to over-processing. Very important as a mix engineer to not be precious about it, listen to what they say and then get on with the job".

3) When does mixing or re-mixing become mastering?

I'd also like to take a swing at mastering Dan's song, for the education it will bring.

Sincerely yours,

Bonneville Bruce

Thanks guys...

1. Remixing in terms of going back to the original session data, the raw session data and doing it again.

2. The bold area I guess you added for emphasis so that is the sentence I'll answer.

Well, it is amazing how some mix engineers can be precious about their recordings. They sometimes view the mixing process as an art in itself (I disagree- I think it is an engineering task, not a creative process in itself, but the lines are blurred) and they will often ignore the advice of a professional mastering engineer because they believe their work is precious.
Mix engineers have to deal with the same sh1te from artists who view their songs as immutable universal truth and wont change a word or chords because it interferes with their sense of self.
Basically, mastering engineers make suggestions that should really be listen to by mix engineers if they want their mixes to improve.
Most mastering engineers spend more than 1/2 the cost of their studio on acoustic treatment.
They hear stuff that people like me don't.
Some people are too proud are arrogant to acknowledge that.
I admit, I had that attitude for a while, but I wised up to it- it gets you nowhere and mixing again takes only a couple of hours.

3. Well mixing a track again is nothing more than a suggestion a mastering engineer might make if the track he is working on isn't up to standard.
This happens from time to time, nothing to worry about- the worst thing I can do as a mix engineer is ignore that advice.
FWIW I usually do final 10-20 mixes of each track anyway- all with slightly different changes (vocals up or down by 1db, or any other instrument). It is normal.
Remixing occurs in my studio, not the mastering engineer's.
FWIW Mastering engineers are referred to as ME's- mix engineers are not, no idea why but I will write ME from now on and I mean Mastering Engineer.

I'm glad you guys appreciate my posts- my way is not the only way to do it of course, so this is all IMHO.
I post a lot on Gearslutz as well, as do a lot of industry pro's- you can get a hell of a lot of great information there although it is a bit less polite at times.

Dan nice tune, it's your best by a mile.

Nice post Jim very informative, keep them coming.

Thanks Stu, I am still reading up on compression and Eq. I have a long way to go but thanks to you guys things are improving.

Also, I did finally upgrade my RAM to 2 gig (maxed out now). Good deal at newegg.com. The RAM made an incredible difference in Reaper. I also found out my computer will not support two monitors. No matter how much I kick and scream, it ain't gonna happen. I will keep my eyes out for a good deal on a widescreen flat panel.

Thanks again.

Dan

Dan you have no available pci or pcie slots on your motherboard? Are you going to get ezdrumer?

Dan you have no available pci or pcie slots on your motherboard?

No. I guess there is a video card available that can supposedly do the job but it is reported to be very buggy. I will try to find where I read that.

Dan

Dan you have no available pci or pcie slots on your motherboard? Are you going to get ezdrumer?

Stu, here is a thread that shows you what I am up against.

http://help.lockergnome.com/windows/monitors-chip-video-card-PCI-slots-ftopict579902.html

It is bleak to say the least. After reading that, would it even be worth it to get a widescreen?

Dan

Ohhh that sucks dude.
If you have no available slots left is there something you can take out that you don't need like an old video or game controller? I put in a ATI Radeon HD Pro for 90 bucks probably alot cheaper in the States that's working great. Snapper her into a pci slot and Bob was my uncle.

Ohhh that sucks dude.
If you have no available slots left is there something you can take out that you don't need like an old video or game controller? I put in a ATI Radeon HD Pro for 90 bucks probably alot cheaper in the States that's working great. Snapper her into a pci slot and Bob was my uncle.

That made me giggle.

I will have to research further because I have no idea how to answer your question.

Dan

Of course. But more importantly you can post a picture of my Les Paul.

Les Paul? The gold top? That is YOURS?

uh oh...As it happens, I had it up on the workbench just yesterday. Had to tweak the setup a tad:

http://barreloflaughs.smugmug.com/photos/286008512_WLos4-M.jpg

Ummm.....I think we need to talk.

barrel

+1 about Jim. I was never put off by any of his posts.

Bruce, as soon as I figure out how to get the track to Jim I will get it to you. Thanks for playing along.

Dan

For anyone who wants to take a stab at mastering the track, I put it on my web server here:

http://www.jamesrichmond.com/client/daddydex/I_Shall2.aif

All you need to do is download it, process it however you want and then PM me.
I can give you ftp access to my web server and we can discuss it.

Let's have at it... :-)

Les Paul? The gold top? That is YOURS?

uh oh...As it happens, I had it up on the workbench just yesterday. Had to tweak the setup a tad:

http://barreloflaughs.smugmug.com/photos/286008512_WLos4-M.jpg

Ummm.....I think we need to talk.

barrel


Hey, I was looking for that saw too.

Dan

Doncha just love this forum when it works like this ?

Ok,

I have spent about 1/2 an hour listening to the track and about 40 mins working on it in Protools.
This isn't my final version, just a work in progress to give you an idea of how I approach this sort of problem.
The file is located here:

http://www.jamesrichmond.com/client/daddydex/i_shall_bounce1.aif

As I finish this post, it is still uploading so anyone who is reading this straight after I post might want to give it a few mins before commencing the download.

The first thing to notice is it is a lot larger now.
That is because I upsampled it to 24bit/96khz.
Why?
Because the processing I do in the digital realm performs better at a higher sample rate.
It makes no difference at all to the original file to be upsampled, it sounds exactly the same.

The first thing I did was insert McDSP Analog Channel across the track.
This is a console/tape emulation plugin.
Hear how there is a much more pronounced bottom end in the track now, compared to the original?
That's why.

It is actually slightly overwhelming- which I'll tighten up later- but for now I kinda want to leave it alone and see what you think.

Then I added 2.8db of hi-shelf EQ at 12.3khz. (Massenburg TDM EQ Plugin) to get the hihat sizzling a bit more (but not too much, this isn't an 80's metal song after all).

Then I created a reverb bus and sent the whole track through the TC Electronic Non Linear Reverb (TDM plugin) but filtered out everything from 500hz and below and anything over 3k.
That reverb bus is then mixed with the original track at quite a low level (-20db roughly) to provide a bit more ambience and warmth.

Finally everything was put through TC Electronic MD3 multiband limiter/mastering plugin.

This is a very complex plugin- kind of like an "L1 limiter for grownups"
My problem with the L1 is it is very On/Off in the way it works.
MD3 has much more scope.
I've done some mid range EQ treatment, some multiband compression with it- just to massage the overall balance.
I need to pay attention to the upper mids a bit more- but hopefully you will find more separation in the instruments, less low-mid grunge.

I may all use it later to deal with the hard panning of the vocal- but need Dan to comment on this.
Dan- did you intentionally hard pan the vocal for a reason?
If this is an artistic choice then I can leave it alone, but if it was done to try to fit all the other instruments in then we can probably deal with it but using a crossover to take out the frequencies around the vocal, mix them back to mono and then use a spatial effect to simulate 'stereo' at those frequencies.

or... you can remix the track with the vocal to the centre and lower it a bit as well.
The vocal is VERY high in this mix now but that is because the track was mixed with a bit of a midrange hole.
When I have had it hit the multiband compressor kick in, it levelled out all the mids which kicked the vocals up too high.
Usually at this point I would say, go back and mix again, drop the vocal by 2-3db and pan it closer to the centre, leave everything else the same.
When go back and reapply the multiband compression it will fill the void and you should have a relatively balanced track.
It is also a bit louder.
I haven't crunched it (yet). I will do a couple of passes later with L3 and you can see how it can be used and abused.

This was all done pretty quickly- I haven't turned on any of the outboard so far for instance but should give you an idea of the process.
A mastering engineer (remember I'm not one) would probably begin with hardware in the first instance but I've started this way for recall reasons- we are probably going to do several passes of this, and setting everything up again each time will be a PITA.

If anyone wants screenshots of the plugin settings, let me know and I can do them later today or tomorrow.
I'll spend a bit more time on it over the coming days, but I have a tracking session now that I have to do.

Curious as to what people think.

Jim

....Then I created a reverb bus and sent the whole track through the TC Electronic Non Linear Reverb (TDM plugin) but filtered out everything from 500hz and below and anything over 3k.
That reverb bus is then mixed with the original track at quite a low level (-20db roughly) to provide a bit more ambience and warmth.
Jim

That sounds neat, what if any are the EQ set's for that plug in ?, i'm just listening through my little ipso boxes but it does seem to have 'sweetened' things without getting in the way.
Point taken on the L1 too, wonder if she'll buy me the MD3 for a late birthday/early Christmas treat ?, is it just TDM or is there a VST version ?

That sounds neat, what if any are the EQ set's for that plug in ?, i'm just listening through my little ipso boxes but it does seem to have 'sweetened' things without getting in the way.
Point taken on the L1 too, wonder if she'll buy me the MD3 for a late birthday/early Christmas treat ?, is it just TDM or is there a VST version ?

I don't have the session open but I think I cut 80hz by 1.4db, cut 1k by 1.2db and boosted 6k by 1.2db.

Not much at all really- it is the multiband compression that really sorts it out. Reducing the dynamic range in the low end and low mids gives the track more energy, but the dynamic range on the top end stays the same so it doesn't sound over-compressed.

MD3 for TDM is $1200- there is no *true native* version but you can buy a Powercore card and buy the plugin.

The powercore plugin is a grand, and the cards are $500-1500.

A used TDM rig these days can be had for $4k roughly if you shop around= but then you need to spend at least $10k in plugins and tdm plugins always cost more, usually double, than native plugins. It sucks but there is a good reason for it. TDM plugins are coded in assembly, much more labour intensive.

The MD3 is taken directly from the TC System 6000 which is about $10k.
I've never used one myself but told by a colleague that it is stonkingly good.

Jim, I was screwing around with my Reverb channel (bus) and must have accidentally panned the vocals. I am kicking myself for not catching it. I will remix with the vocals centered and dropped in volume. Am I still cool to upload to your FTP? Thanks.

I haven't been able to listen to what you have done so far. I am not sure why it won't play but I will figure it out.

Dan

Dan

Jim, I was screwing around with my Reverb channel (bus) and must have accidentally panned the vocals. I am kicking myself for not catching it. I will remix with the vocals centered and dropped in volume. Am I still cool to upload to your FTP? Thanks.

I haven't been able to listen to what you have done so far. I am not sure why it won't play but I will figure it out.

Dan

Dan

Hi Dan,

Yes you can still upload to the ftp.

Your audio card might not be 96k capable.
I can convert it back to 24bit/44.1khz if you want and repost it.

I can choose 96000 Hz at the time of rendering. Is that want you want? I will give it go.

Dan

Dear Jim,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and techniques. I find this these posts very informative.

A question. Why is the Massenburg EQ better than Waves? Features, sound quality?

I can choose 96000 Hz at the time of rendering. Is that want you want? I will give it go.

Dan

Hi Dan,

I would say it is best to leave things as they are- render to 44.1k- let's not introduce more unknown elements than we have to.
If you didn't track at 96k it won't help anyway.

Hi Dan,

I would say it is best to leave things as they are- render to 44.1k- let's not introduce more unknown elements than we have to.
If you didn't track at 96k it won't help anyway.

Good then, I will render and upload right now.

Dan

Mission accomplished. I think I even got it in the correct folder this time. Let me know if you need anymore changes.

Dan

For those still following, I posted a version for comparison on my soundclick page. This is the AIFF. file run through L2. No other treatment.

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=803496

Dan

For those still following, I posted a version for comparison on my soundclick page. This is the AIFF. file run through L2. No other treatment.

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=803496

Dan

Interesting.
Listening to it now- the bass response is completely different with the L2.
I don't know what monitors you guys have but on my dynaudios and genelecs the actual electric bass part seems to really pop- there isn't nearly as much low bass as my version though.
Doing a quick A/B between my edit and yours it sounds like a Jazz Bass (yours) vs PBass (mine) tonality.
What actual electric bass did you use?
Some nice 'lazy', just behind the beat bass playing there btw. Kudos.

The separation between the organ and the rhythm electric guitar parts has decreased however, quite significantly I think.

We're definitely getting somewhere.

I will mixdown with my current version, (vocals where they should be, but the same treatment as earlier today) and we can compare.
I'll turn on the outboard tomorrow and we can hear the difference that hardware compression will make to the mix.

It's a SX Jazz Bass.

Dan

And for the record, I am using KRK V6 Monitors.

I definitely could here it muddy up the guitar and organ. This was intended to demonstrate the L2 in the wrong hands scenario as I would guess most people just use it to increase the volume.

Dan

It's a SX Jazz Bass.

Dan

Nice tonality to it.
Did you DI, mic an amp or use an amp sim (like a pod).

And for the record, I am using KRK V6 Monitors.


I know them- a colleague swears by them- I always found them a bit mid range forward to my ears, but that is more about me than any deficiency in the KRK's.

Jim, I ran the bass through a DI and a sim. I will have to look to see which one.

Dan

Updates for people again.
Dan's fixed original with the vocal panned centre is here:

http://www.jamesrichmond.com/client/daddydex/I%20Shall%202_fixed.aif

My original edits on this file are here:

http://www.jamesrichmond.com/client/daddydex/bounce_vocal_corr_1.aif

This is the same mastering chain as before- it is 1/2 way through the upload at the moment so might be best to leave it for an hour before downloading.

I have just done a new version with the Massive Passive used for high end EQ, the Focusrite Red3 compressor and I used McDSP's ML4000 mastering limiter to finish it off.
It is much closer to release quality level now- I'll upload it later tonight, once the last file has finished.

I look forward to it Jim.

What happened to Bonneville Bruce? He was going to take a stab at this.

By the way Jim, your description "shouty" is perfect in regards to the hard limiting.

Dan

For those still following, I posted a version for comparison on my soundclick page. This is the AIFF. file run through L2. No other treatment.

i lost track of this thread for a couple of days and it's gotten over my head in some respects ....

L1/2/3
these are software limiters, right? are they included in your recording program, plug-ins from another source or what? the difference is stunning ... then i listened to Jim's work. wow. light-years from anything i'll be able to do anytime soon (i'm kind of an advanced beginner in the digital realm). but listening to the comparisons, i want to learn more ... especially in simple methods like the L1/2/3 thing.

Here is my latest version.
It was passed through the Manley Massive Passive for a bit of boosting and cutting, into the Focusrite Red 3, beck in to Protools and I applied the McDSP ML4000 mastering limiter with some custom settings.

Sounds pretty good to my ears.

http://www.jamesrichmond.com/client/daddydex/shall_ml4000.aif

hese are software limiters, right? are they included in your recording program, plug-ins from another source or what? the difference is stunning ... then i listened to Jim's work. wow. light-years from anything i'll be able to do anytime soon (i'm kind of an advanced beginner in the digital realm). but listening to the comparisons, i want to learn more ... especially in simple methods like the L1/2/3 thing.

Waves L1, L2 and L3 are different versions of a limiter from Waves.
They aren't included with the recording software- you have to buy them.
The TDM Version of L3 is around $900.
You need a Protools HD rig to use them.
This isn't a cost effective approach, for sure- but imho you cannot make a record that is release quality with a native computer a cheap audio card and a few plugins.
Believe me, if I though I could I would have done so and save myself a lot of money (and depreciation).

I have a 48 input TDM rig that I track with and a fair few plugins but a hell of a lot of outboard.

Also, having the plugins is one thing- learning to use them takes time as well.
I've had rookie engineers come into my studio and make a hash of it- and I've done that myself in the past too.

Plugins only get you so far though- I far prefer using outboard to treat the tracks- just passing audio at unity through the Massive Passive, Focusrite Red 3 and my Summit DCL200 makes the tracks sound bigger, fatter and more fun.
There is something about passing audio through a transformer that warms it up in a musically pleasing way- much better than software.

I'm in no way saying I am the be all and end all of mastering engineers though.
Whilst I am pleased you like the treatments, put that track in the hands of someone like Tony Cousins and they will do a much better job- but they have more expensive gear, a better acoustic environment than I and they have 25+ years on me in terms of experience.

Back to the Waves limiters.... They are fine, to a point.
Although I own them I actually prefer TC Electronic MD3 and McDSP ML4000, which is what I've used here.
The ML4000 is a bargain at $500.
I use it all the time.

i hear you loud and clear, Jim ... the last record i made, i sprung for a pro mastering job from Dave Harris of Studio B in Charlotte NC. he uses mainly hardware too, in a room he designed for mastering. it was incredible to hear the sound come to life ... he ran it through 2-inch tape as part of the signal chain. but it sounds like you're doing the same thing in your own way.

at this point, i'm a loooong way from that, just trying to find low-cost ways to get "bigger" sound from my cheezy-sounding home recordings and train my ears. this thread has given me ideas, most of them probably laughable, but ya gotta start somewhere!

Sorry Woodman, I am so new to this that I assumed everyone else was already familiar with the Wave plugins. If your over your head, I have already drowned. Next time I will be more specific.

The file is downloading now. Jim, when you get a minute could you explain the difference in AIFF and MP3.

Dan

i am so grateful to you guys for this post. thank you!

Jim, the difference is profound to say the least. To me the track sounds much warmer. It really pulls it together. This has been a blast. Sorry it took me so long to reply. The track took about one hour to download. That is why I am curious as to the differences in AIFF and MP3. Thanks again for this.

Edit: I did a little reading and found that the AIFF is not compressed and MP3 is. So I can see why it would be preferable. How is AIFF transferred to CD?

Dan

Compression formats like mp3's are designed to make audio files, which are quite massive, smaller. There is some degree of loss of quality with this, depending on how compressed the file is. AIFFs are best for recording, mastering, and burning to CDs because they don't lose anything via file compression. For uploading onto the web or your computer, mp3s are preferable because they don't take an hour to load (like you experienced) or take up 50 mega bytes on your hard drive per song.

edit: speaking of aiffs taking forever to load, the finished version of the song just loaded up. Holy crap! It sounds so much better than the original.

I just A/B'd my L2 version with Jim's latest on a tiny pair of speakers and the difference is very noticeable. On Jim's version the instruments have some definition but the L2'd version sounds like mud. I should point out that I did nothing more than yank down the threshold control on L2. No other parameter was disturbed. Only the user.

Dan

i hear you loud and clear, Jim ... the last record i made, i sprung for a pro mastering job from Dave Harris of Studio B in Charlotte NC. he uses mainly hardware too, in a room he designed for mastering. it was incredible to hear the sound come to life ... he ran it through 2-inch tape as part of the signal chain. but it sounds like you're doing the same thing in your own way.

at this point, i'm a loooong way from that, just trying to find low-cost ways to get "bigger" sound from my cheezy-sounding home recordings and train my ears. this thread has given me ideas, most of them probably laughable, but ya gotta start somewhere!

Hey Woodman,

I've hit 2" in the past when tracking- basically you bounce the audio off the 2" and into protools.
This sounds better than recording to digital, then sending it to 2" and rerecording into Protools which some people do as well, but I hate how that sounds.

A lot of mastering guys use 1/2 inch tape- if you think about how much space 2 tracks has on a 1/2 inch recorder (1/4 of an inch each), that is more than dividing 24 tracks into 2" (1/12th).

i am so grateful to you guys for this post. thank you!

Happy to do it.
It has been fun.

Jim, the difference is profound to say the least. To me the track sounds much warmer. It really pulls it together. This has been a blast. Sorry it took me so long to reply. The track took about one hour to download. That is why I am curious as to the differences in AIFF and MP3. Thanks again for this.

Edit: I did a little reading and found that the AIFF is not compressed and MP3 is. So I can see why it would be preferable. How is AIFF transferred to CD?

Dan

Glad you like it.
In case I didn't make it clear, feel free to you use as you like.
I don't want to be seen as trawling for work with this- but people can always contact me if they need projects mixed or mastered as I have done.
I do charge for this- but not as much as some other places charge.
I won't mention it again- and I am always happy to offer assistance as my schedule allows if you have questions for your own home recordings and releases.

AIF can be burned to CD by pretty much any CD burning software- pressing houses usually request 16 or 24 bit AIF's to work with.
Their dithering software/process is probably superior to anything most of us have in our studio although I use Barbabatch on the Mac when I need to to it myself.

BTW, Dithering is reducing the number of bits to 16, the number of bits that a CD uses which brings me to a couple of questions you might want to think about.

Do people understand that reducing the bit depth reduces the dynamic range?
Do people understand what dynamic range is?


edit: speaking of aiffs taking forever to load, the finished version of the song just loaded up. Holy crap! It sounds so much better than the original.

:-)

I just A/B'd my L2 version with Jim's latest on a tiny pair of speakers and the difference is very noticeable. On Jim's version the instruments have some definition but the L2'd version sounds like mud. I should point out that I did nothing more than yank down the threshold control on L2. No other parameter was disturbed. Only the user.

Dan

Yes, L2 can be great in the right context- but it is all how it is applied.
I've seen some people, usually young guys with a stupid haircut and a backwards baseball cap, chain multiple L2's because to their ears it sounds better.
Well, it sounds LOUDER- as I said earlier, very shouty, but louder isn't better, it just reduces the dynamic range which is very much the opposite of 'musical'.

One final point, when I make a change that affects the overall loudness of the tracks I change the level on my monitor controller (the SPLMTC-2381) so that the perceived loudness to my ears stay constant.
Ie when I apply the ML4000 mastering limiter the entire tracks sounds as though it is a few deb louder- I simply turn the volume on the MTC2381 down to mate what it was before I made the change.
This helps you keep a sense of musical balance, rather than adhering to 'louder is better'.
We are programmed to think that louder is better and as an engineer you need to counteract that in order to maintain a sense of balance and apply that to the track.

I'm glad you are happy Dan and thanks for asking the original question- I always enjoy the opportunity to demonstrate the processes.

So we render to 24 bit and then reduce to 16 bit? I confess that I have no idea what bit rate I record at. Nor did I know what bit rate I used for rendering. I just went and checked. So why don't we just render to 16 bit so as not to have any effect on the dynamic range?

Dan

So we render to 24 bit and then reduce to 16 bit? I confess that I have no idea what bit rate I record at. Nor did I know what bit rate I used for rendering. I just went and checked. So why don't we just render to 16 bit so as not to have any effect on the dynamic range?

Dan

Without over simplifying it, there are benefits to tracking a 24 bit and a sample rate higher than 44.1khz (I record at 88.2kHz or 96khz mostly these days) and then having the audio dithered/sample rate converted down to 16/44.1 (in two separate processes).

This isn't cut and dried- and it isn't a straight conversion- using POW-R noise shaping dither algorithms does make a difference compared to tracking at 16 bit.
Also, if you ever want to release the music on a higher quality format further down the track, you use the highest quality master you have.

For technical info I'd suggest going to the mastering forum on Gearslutz and ask there- I am sure someone with more of a mathematics background will be able to explain it better.

I just joined Gearslutz. I will go sneak in the back door of the mastering forum and poke around. Thanks Jim.

Dan

I just joined Gearslutz. I will go sneak in the back door of the mastering forum and poke around. Thanks Jim.

Dan

Cool- I have the same name there, "Octatonic".
I am mostly in the Guitar/Bass, Electronic Music, High End sections.

It is a great place- some big name producers on there, although is down at the moment due to a power outage and some data loss.

Should be up in a couple of hours.

Cool- I have the same name there, "Octatonic".
I am mostly in the Guitar/Bass, Electronic Music, High End sections.

It is a great place- some big name producers on there, although is down at the moment due to a power outage and some data loss.

Should be up in a couple of hours.

As I was trying to sneak in, I stopped and played a game of space invaders.

Dan

not to create controversy here, but most music is listened to in the CAR. if you are mixing, mastering or whatever... imho, you be wise to take your said recording(s) to the car, and with a average/good system, give it a sound critical listening.

ive experienced great recordings-production that sounded wonderful in a studios CONTROLLED acoutically sound environment... in studios that cost a LOT of money. we'd take em out to the car and they sounded DEAD. certain frequencies were lost, and voices and/or instruments literally almost disappeared or were too loud etc. effects would be lost or overbearing, as well.

a car is, sonically, a very different space.

if we were all listening to this stuff in an anaerobically perfect acoustically controlled environment, then much of the posts above would be validated...

its just not the case in the real world.

as always, imho.

rand z tropicalsoul.net

not to create controversy here, but most music is listened to in the CAR. if you are mixing, mastering or whatever... imho, you be wise to take your said recording(s) to the car, and with a average/good system, give it a sound critical listening.

ive experienced great recordings-production that sounded wonderful in a studios CONTROLLED acoutically sound environment... in studios that cost a LOT of money. we'd take em out to the car and they sounded DEAD. certain frequencies were lost, and voices and/or instruments literally almost disappeared or were too loud etc. effects would be lost or overbearing, as well.

a car is, sonically, a very different space.

if we were all listening to this stuff in an anaerobically perfect acoustically controlled environment, then much of the posts above would be validated...

its just not the case in the real world.

as always, imho.

rand z tropicalsoul.net

Hi Rand,

You're pretty much correct- and indeed on the first page of the thread I said the following:


There are also boom boxes in the studio and in my house for reference mixing and I routinely go for a drive just to hear the tracks in the car stereo.


There is a problem with this though: they way you have presented your post has an element of truth wrapped in some (I am sure unintentional) misrepresented information which requires some clarification.

Reference checking with multiple sets of monitors, including a car stereo, is a normal pattern of behaviour for an engineer.
This doesn't mean you cannot get it right in an acoustically treated room.

I need to explain a bit of acoustics here.

An acoustically flat room doesn't boost or cut very much at particular frequency points.
An untreated room (particularly a square room with a ceiling height the same as the length/width) does- and quite badly.
If you are listening in an acoustically controlled room you are hearing what is coming out of the speakers.

The room is not negatively impacting the musical balance of a track and dictating a series of 'bad' choices (usually regarding EQ or compression, or just overall level).

To explain further (and with an extreme example).
If you have a room that resonates at 100hz on all 6 surfaces causing a 3db boost at 90hz- the cumulative effect is an 18db boost at 90hz.
This will mean you will have a huge bass issue and are likely to overcompensate for it by cutting instruments that have important information at that frequency point (Kick, Metal Guitars, Electric Bass etc).
In a room that has a bass boost problem you often end up with bass light mixes.

In the past, room analysis software (and earlier a tape measure & calculator) was used to calculate the room modes and then put a graphic EQ across the 2-bus to compensate for these deficiencies.
This introduces problems because graphic EQ's also affect the surrounding frequencies and hence these days this is frowned upon and acoustic/construction solutions are often sought.

Mixing in an acoustically balanced room does not mean you cannot get your mixes to sound balanced, but it doesn't mean you necessarily can do this.
It is really down to the engineer.
It takes skill and experience - and a lot of mistakes along the way.
It is perfectly possible to mix in a flat room and obtain the 'right balance' without effects disappearing or being overcompensated, or sounding too dead.
(The 'right balance' is of course, highly subjective- and really the reason for choosing an engineer over another- their sense of aesthetic is very important).
If you have experienced this once (or even dozens of times) this really isn't proof that it is room that causes this- it really comes down to the engineer and his methodology.

I am not discounting the need to reference check in a car, but we need to not take some limited empirical evidence of proof of the fault of established and often adhered to engineering principles and techniques.

Also (and of equal importance), reference checking in a car doesn't mean you have referenced checked in ALL cars- each car model has different acoustic properties and there is no way you can test your mixes in every permutation of car, car stereo and speaker combination.
Checking in a Mini provides no useful information for someone who owns a VW Minivan- but this is essentially irrelevant if the engineer (in his acoustically balanced room) has mixed to a professional standard.

I'm not having a go at you- it is just that your post reads as though it is almost more important to balance the track by listening in a car- I am concerned people might pick up on this and perhaps not worry about designing their mix room properly or worrying about acoustics, bass trapping and the like with the misguided idea that 'it doesn't really matter because everyone listens in cars'.
This would be a shame as it is pointedly not true.

Mixing in an acoustically balanced room is paramount.
One of the reasons I was able to balance Daddydex's track the way I did was because I work in a very well balanced room.

A reference check in a car is really one of the last things you would do, just to make sure nothing jumps out at you- this often happens in music that has a lot of stereo effects, track bussing and panning that isn't 'usual'.
Often rookie engineers make mistakes (or simply do things that experienced engineers would avoid) that mess with the stereo balance of a track.

I hope this clarifies my position.

I listen to everything I record on 4 different sets of speakers, including the car. I think we did a pretty good job of establishing this as an excepted and expected technique.

Dan

hey jim.... point well taken. and im not deliberately singling any one out. and , i too believe having a good "room" and equipment is extremely important. and, knowing the hardware/software and how to use the stuff in the best possible way, is really important too.

to reiterate, i wanted to point out that, in my experience, mixing and mastering etc. in an acoustically perfect or controlled environment may create a product that may or may not sound good in uncontrolled environment... like a car. and since most of us listen to music in cars... it would be prudent to check and see what it sounds like, in a car.

we always do this... and like you mentioned, we'll also run it through a boom box or other source, just to make sure we know what it'll sound like, somewhere else.

imho, its pretty important.

you've offered other good points... thanks!

rand z tropicalsoul.net

hey jim.... point well taken. and im not deliberately singling any one out. and , i too believe having a good "room" and equipment is extremely important. and, knowing the hardware/software and how to use the stuff in the best possible way, is really important too.

to reiterate, i wanted to point out that, in my experience, mixing and mastering etc. in an acoustically perfect or controlled environment may create a product that may or may not sound good in uncontrolled environment... like a car. and since most of us listen to music in cars... it would be prudent to check and see what it sounds like, in a car.

we always do this... and like you mentioned, we'll also run it through a boom box or other source, just to make sure we know what it'll sound like, somewhere else.

imho, its pretty important.

you've offered other good points... thanks!

rand z tropicalsoul.net

No worries- we be cool.

So, I've stumbled into this party a bit late, but I have a few questions.


I'm in the process of ramping up to do a bit of home recording using my trusty iMac and Logic Studio.

I want to start off on the right foot and develop good recording techniques that will make the
mastering part of the process go as smoothly as possible.

I gather that it is preferable to record at 24bit/96Khz. I can do this with my gear.

From reading this thread, it also seems that the correct procedure is to add whichever effects are appropriate
to each track, do a final stereo or 5.1 mixdown , add any effects to the final mix and export to a
lossless format like AIFF to hand off to the mastering lab, no?

Would it be better to find a mastering lab that is Logic friendly and hand off a copy of the entire project?

What would be the best way to export something like that?

Is it best to minimize the use of dynamics processing like compression/limiting until the mastering stage?
I'd think that too many levels of that type of processing would not be a good thing...

Any other suggestions for a beginner that would allow me to produce tracks that would make the mastering process as easy as possible for the mastering engineer?

I realize that there is a wide spread of rates for mastering, but what should I expect to pay, per tune, for this type of service?
I'm not going to be able to afford the services of any famous Grammy winners, but will try to budget for someone
who is reasonably competent and reasonably well equipped...

TIA

So, I've stumbled into this party a bit late, but I have a few questions.

I'm in the process of ramping up to do a bit of home recording using my trusty iMac and Logic Studio.

I want to start off on the right foot and develop good recording techniques that will make the
mastering part of the process go as smoothly as possible.

I gather that it is preferable to record at 24bit/96Khz. I can do this with my gear.

It is more complicated than basic figures.
For instance, I would much rather do a record with a pair of Apogee Rosetta 16bit 44.1khz converters and almost all of the budget 24/96 soundcards on the market.

Most engineers track at 24bit/44.1khz to manage DSP vs quality.
I track at 24bit/96khz.


From reading this thread, it also seems that the correct procedure is to add whichever effects are appropriate
to each track, do a final stereo or 5.1 mixdown , add any effects to the final mix and export to a
lossless format like AIFF to hand off to the mastering lab, no?

You shouldn't apply any effects to the final mix.
Do it all in the mixing stage- once you have a final stereo mixdown LEAVE IT ALONE. :-)


Would it be better to find a mastering lab that is Logic friendly and hand off a copy of the entire project?

What would be the best way to export something like that?

A 24bit AIFF file in the sample rate of the project is all you need.


Is it best to minimize the use of dynamics processing like compression/limiting until the mastering stage?
I'd think that too many levels of that type of processing would not be a good thing...


Yup that is best.


Any other suggestions for a beginner that would allow me to produce tracks that would make the mastering process as easy as possible for the mastering engineer?


Don't do anything too weird with stereo imaging- it can cause problems down the track.
Really try to cool it with compression and limiting.
Once you get your basic sound, drop the ratio a bit and see if it sounds livelier.


I realize that there is a wide spread of rates for mastering, but what should I expect to pay, per tune, for this type of service?
I'm not going to be able to afford the services of any famous Grammy winners, but will try to budget for someone
who is reasonably competent and reasonably well equipped...

TIA

Actually you can afford grammy winners- mastering really isn't THAT expensive- compared to tracking and mixing.
http://www.imastering.co.uk/ is a service from metropolis.
They do a deal where you pay £75 a song- or £125 a track if you want a specific person (I'd ask for Tim Young or Tony Cousins).

I can always do it for you as well- PM me if you want to discuss it.

Jim

It is more complicated than basic figures.
For instance, I would much rather do a record with a pair of Apogee Rosetta 16bit 44.1khz converters and almost all of the budget 24/96 soundcards on the market.

I have an Apogee Duet for now till I need more simultaneous tracks.

It's *way* better than anything else I've used, at least playing back other people's music
and with the Tone Lab and with the GT Brick I use for bass.

I also have a set of Event TR8s to listen through.

Most engineers track at 24bit/44.1khz to manage DSP vs quality.
I track at 24bit/96khz.

I have the capability to do the 24/96, I think. Storage/file size isn't a issue.

You shouldn't apply any effects to the final mix.
Do it all in the mixing stage- once you have a final stereo mixdown LEAVE IT ALONE. :-)

Make sense.


A 24bit AIFF file in the sample rate of the project is all you need.

That's easy enough.

All I need to do is record something first. That seems to be the hard part for me.




Don't do anything too weird with stereo imaging- it can cause problems down the track.

What's "too weird"?

I have some stereo effects in my Tone Lab LE that I want to use on guitar.

My plan is to record a dry track for each instrument and reamp thru the Tone Lab
so I can play around with textures independently from my playing.

I don't think I want to do anything to far out with the final mix, but I would like to be able to use the
stereo, ( and eventually the 5.1 ) space, but that's down the road.


Really try to cool it with compression and limiting.

I plan to avoid either as much as possible.

Once you get your basic sound, drop the ratio a bit and see if it sounds livelier.

I plan to use minimal compression anyway, and I'll try a smaller ratio to begin with.

I don't particularly want to be able to notice any compression and leave the dynamic processing till the end stages.


Actually you can afford grammy winners- mastering really isn't THAT expensive- compared to tracking and mixing.
http://www.imastering.co.uk/ is a service from metropolis.
They do a deal where you pay £75 a song- or £125 a track if you want a specific person (I'd ask for Tim Young or Tony Cousins).

I can always do it for you as well- PM me if you want to discuss it.

Jim

It's probably going to be later in the year before I get anything to the point where it will benefit
from a decent mastering job, but I definitely appreciate the advice and the offer.

I'll be in touch at some point....

Thanks much.


Claude

I have an Apogee Duet for now till I need more simultaneous tracks.


Nice!
How does it integrate with Logic?
I've been thinking about getting one for my powerbook.

Most of the time I run a Protools HD rig but use Logic as the front end.
It can be a bit of a pfaff, but a pretty powerful combo.

What's "too weird"?

I have some stereo effects in my Tone Lab LE that I want to use on guitar.


Too weird might be putting one side of a dominant stereo track out of phase.


I don't think I want to do anything to far out with the final mix, but I would like to be able to use the
stereo, ( and eventually the 5.1 ) space, but that's down the road.


Cool.


It's probably going to be later in the year before I get anything to the point where it will benefit
from a decent mastering job, but I definitely appreciate the advice and the offer.

I'll be in touch at some point....

Thanks much.

Claude

Happy to help.

Nice!
How does it integrate with Logic?
I've been thinking about getting one for my powerbook.

Most of the time I run a Protools HD rig but use Logic as the front end.
It can be a bit of a pfaff, but a pretty powerful combo.

I'm sure that you'd love it. I've yet to read a bad review.

I'm just cracking the plastic on my Logic Studio, but the Duet is designed to work with Core Audio.

There is a Duet control panel available from the Options menu in Logic Pro.
Seems pretty seamless to me, but I'm blessed with an almost total lack of knowledge.

Too weird might be putting one side of a dominant stereo track out of phase.

That doesn't seem to be too musical, but I'd have to hear it..

Hey guys. For do it yourself mastering do you just stick your plugins on the master track at the end of the mixing process or do you render to mp3 and then run the mp3 through the mastering plugins? I know if I have to ask that I am nowhere near being able to effectively master but I do like to mess with things.

Thanks,

Dan

Master on 24-bit files, make MP3s later.