Mastering

[Smile on Impact]

Hey yo.
Just started the projuice forum ( http://projuice.org/forums/ ) and i wrote this little guide to mastering.
Could be useful to anyone here is is releasing or planning to release tunes.

What is mastering?
In basic terms, mastering is the last process in making a record, before manufacture.
It consists mainly of EQ, Compression/Limiting and a little bit of Editing.
The traditional method of mastering, results in a 'Master' of your disc, from which all copies are made.

How will a mastered version sound, compared to my original mixdown?
The Mastered version of your track will always be louder than the original mixdown. the Limiting process will squash down all the peaks in volume allowing the whole mix to be turned up. This can dramatically increase the perceived volume of your track even though the peaks will not be any louder than 0db. The mastered version should have an overall tone more similar to a comparable release. For example; a radio single might have a very bright top end and a lot of volume. A dubstep track may have a large swelling sub bass that would be suitable for club play and comparable to other tracks of that genre, even tho I wouldn’t sound very loud through a clock radio.
If you are making a track for clubs the mastering will be different compared to a radio single or even an album track.

What is better digital or analogue mastering?
Neither; Each mastering studio and each engineer should be judged on their ability, their sound (always listen to previous work, first) and their flexibility.
The mode of operation makes little difference compared to the above factors and, at the end of the day, Digital / Analogue mastering is more about personal taste, as they have both been used very well and/or very poorly over the past few decades.

How much should I pay for mastering?
As a simple guide you will find mastering ranges from $40-$150 (AUD) a track. $40 will be digital only mastering, probably done in a home studio in the engineer's own time. This may have a long lead time, but depending on the engineer may also be very good quality. You will receive the mastered versions of the music via email.
$150 a track will give you an engineer in a purpose built studio with a lot of releases under his/her belt. You will also be able to participate in the session and provide input while the music is being mastered. If you are making an album for CD release and radio play this is where you will see the most benefit from 'top end' mastering. If you are making tracks for club play and digital download, it is probably not worth paying a lot for top end mastering.

Should I master my music again for a vinyl release?
Absolutely, mastering for vinyl is a completely different thing. There are factors that need to be considered for a vinyl master which make no difference to digital.
These factors include phase, stereo width and dynamic range.
Vinyl also colours the sounds where Digital shouldn’t. EQ is added to compensate.

How do I prepare a track for mastering?
Most engineers will prefer a digital file at high res (example: 24bit/48khz) but they may accept a DAT or CD. Check with the studio first. Mastering may influence the balance of certain parts in your mix;
Some people recommend having a few mixes of the track with slightly different levels for example: Louder vocals in one, louder bass in another. etc. If you are confident in your mix, it may not be needed. However if you are paying a premium for top end mastering and you want to guarantee best results, it probably not a bad idea

I've written a track today and I want to try it out in a club tonight. I don't want to pay for mastering. What should I do?
It makes sense to do a simple master in your home studio so that the sound is at least close to a released track.
Use your software to EQ the mixdown, so your track has a similar tone to a comparable release. Then hard limit the mixdown so that it's at an appropriate volume. It's better to use too little compression/limiting rather than too much, especially for a club tune. Too much compression will make the track sound hard and flat removing the ‘bounce’ or ‘pump’ in the bass. Top and tail the track (if needed) in a wav editor, Then render the track down at 16bit 44.1khz, ready to burn to CD.

[a1studmuffin]

If you are making tracks for club play and digital download, it is probably not worth paying a lot for top end mastering.

I think that attitude highlights a major problem of many "digital era" dance musicians. If you don't value your music and give it the respect it deserves, who will?

If you are making a track for clubs the mastering will be different compared to a radio single or even an album track.

Nahhhhh... different styles of music will require different mastering styles, sure, but the same track mastered differently for different outlets? Doesn't really make sense.

[Smile on Impact]

I think that attitude highlights a major problem of many "digital era" dance musicians. If you don't value your music and give it the respect it deserves, who will?

if you want to pay extra to use manley analogue compression and aphex stereo enhancers, to make your >22khz harmonics sound brilliant, go ahead. but it will not make the slightest difference when someone downloads a 192 burns it to CD and plays it over a club pa.

Nahhhhh... different styles of music will require different mastering styles, sure, but the same track mastered differently for different outlets? Doesn't really make sense.

shut up dude.

ever mastered a track for radio ?

mastering for radio, generally pulls out most of the sub bass and compresses the heck out of the total track.
you also ride the treable right up to make the track 'stick out.' further more all broadcast stuff goes through at least one limiter again as it leaves the studio. so that shit is slammed by the time we hear it

for club you want to keep as much bass as you can and not overcompress things because they loose all 'pump'. you also don't wind the treble up as much in a club master because you don't need that 'volume' as much as you do in radio.

[Smile on Impact]

wikkid

[Direkt]

Goodtimes Posse 101 officiating inside this ride.

[Direkt]

I understand what Arlo (SOI) is saying in regards to radio, it makes sense - and I've read about it before.

But Arlo, just cause something is designed for the "club" (I.e. dance music) - doesn't mean it's only going to be acquired as a 192kbps MP3. There's 320kbps, WAV's, CD's, FLAC's etc.

I'm not saying anything new here.

[Smile on Impact]

But Arlo, just cause something is designed for the "club" (I.e. dance music) - doesn't mean it's only going to be acquired as a 192kbps MP3. There's 320kbps, WAV's, CD's, FLAC's etc.

.

yeah dude fo sho.
I'd never say don't do the best you can. you gotta be a tweak head to fork out for neve and apogee gear.
I am 100% a tweak head.
but if you've a got a single with remixes (or ep etc) to release for online only. I'd prefer to spend $300 on good solid digital mastering than $1000 with Jack the Bear (I've mastered with Tony before and he is a dude and makes brillant sounding shit)
but you could then put that $700 into promo and you WILL notice the differance.
far more than the differance in mastering.


sense ?

[grooki]

I've written a track today and I want to try it out in a club tonight. I don't want to pay for mastering. What should I do?
It makes sense to do a simple master in your home studio so that the sound is at least close to a released track.
Use your software to EQ the mixdown, so your track has a similar tone to a comparable release. Then hard limit the mixdown so that it's at an appropriate volume. It's better to use too little compression/limiting rather than too much, especially for a club tune. Too much compression will make the track sound hard and flat removing the ‘bounce’ or ‘pump’ in the bass. Top and tail the track (if needed) in a wav editor, Then render the track down at 16bit 44.1khz, ready to burn to CD.

[/quote]

OK i have tried compressing (limiting) the final mix as a wave file, the main reason being to increase the volume. My problem is that any noticable compression that will squash the track enough to enable me to increase the overall volume distorts the track, and I usually notice it on the snares - they start to get mushy.
Is this because the snares are too loud in the mix? A lot of dubstep (what I have in mind) has quite loud snares that are very prominent

Or is it the settings on the the compressor?
which settings will have the desired effect of compressing the the wav without obviously effecting individual parts? For instance a slow attack and release will not effect the snares etc (?), but doesn't that allow the snares through uncompressed, therefore defeating the point? On the other hand, with a quick attack, won't that effect sharp sounds (snare)?

A guide on the actual process would be nifty, pretty much everything I've found so far is pretty general: "boost the overall track volume with a compressor/limiter"

?

[nic]

hay guise im here and iv got wavesL2
10£ per track
smashit

[grooki]

great list of vsts on the projuice forum btw

[grooki]

ah now this falls into the "nifty" catergory:
http://www.blisstix.com/radio/tutorial.htm

I now get the difference between a compressor and a limiter, and it looks like I'lm going to have hunt down a MAXIMISER!

[Direkt]

sense ?

Fo sho.

[Smile on Impact]

ah now this falls into the "nifty" catergory:
http://www.blisstix.com/radio/tutorial.htm

I now get the difference between a compressor and a limiter, and it looks like I'm going to have hunt down a MAXIMISER!

Yeah that's handy
Def a limiter you need.
probably from a wave editor if you've got one.
tut mentions cool edit.
mad program. i still use that for my 'mastering'

normal compression will f-ck your transients for the snare and will cause a distortion on the bass as it tries to pull down the waves as they roll on. Simply because the crest of the bass is a swell in volume and that is what triggers the compression.

You can easily tell when you've used to much limiting.
you loose all snap in your snares and noisy things like hats or fuzzy synth will start to 'wash around' giving a mushy, swelling sound. So generally maximum limiting is around 0.5 - 1db below that critical point.
radio mastering often pulls extra bass out, this allows the limiter to be slammed even harder before reaching that 'mush point'

[grooki]

I think I'm finally getting my head around this one now... Cubase has a limiter, I will have a blast with that...

[spiral]

various mastering techniques discussed here
http://www.soundpunk.com/index.php?topic=236.0

[Blaxter]

But Arlo, just cause something is designed for the "club" (I.e. dance music) - doesn't mean it's only going to be acquired as a 192kbps MP3. There's 320kbps, WAV's, CD's, FLAC's etc.

.

yeah dude fo sho.
I'd never say don't do the best you can. you gotta be a tweak head to fork out for neve and apogee gear.
I am 100% a tweak head.
but if you've a got a single with remixes (or ep etc) to release for online only. I'd prefer to spend $300 on good solid digital mastering than $1000 with Jack the Bear (I've mastered with Tony before and he is a dude and makes brillant sounding shit)
but you could then put that $700 into promo and you WILL notice the differance.
far more than the differance in mastering.


sense ?

nup....

you just contradicted yourself there bro.

Thread FA1L IMO

[Lauer]

OK i have tried compressing (limiting) the final mix as a wave file, the main reason being to increase the volume. My problem is that any noticable compression that will squash the track enough to enable me to increase the overall volume distorts the track, and I usually notice it on the snares - they start to get mushy.
Is this because the snares are too loud in the mix? A lot of dubstep (what I have in mind) has quite loud snares that are very prominent

Yeah limiter is what your after.... Try putting a limiter post fader on the master bus when mixing so you will get a good idea of what gets affected and be better able to balance your track. Of course play with the settings and see how you go... you would want a transparent limiter.

[Smile on Impact]

Fo sho.

sense ?

nup....

you just contradicted yourself there bro.

Thread FA1L IMO

you rock blaxter.

[Blaxter]

Your welcome.
Wasn't trying to be a prick, but I felt that you were advising on one hand to do the best you could with mastering (what this thread is all about) and then suggesting its better to spend money on promotion. IMO too much money gets spent on promoting crap music... and you seem to advocate promotion over production in a thread dedicated to mastering music.

[Smile on Impact]

Your welcome.
Wasn't trying to be a prick, but I felt that you were advising on one hand to do the best you could with mastering (what this thread is all about) and then suggesting its better to spend money on promotion. IMO too much money gets spent on promoting crap music... and you seem to advocate promotion over production in a thread dedicated to mastering music.

Digital mastering with a good engineer will get you 99% of what topshelf mastering can achieve.
if you've got unlimited monies get top shelf mastering. if not. the differance is proably not enough to warrent the spend.
but dude spend as much as you want on whatever you want.

[Lauer]

There's doing it for the money or doing it for the art.

Most of the time the ones that do it for the money produce shit!

[Direkt]

Then again, there's always people who are talented producers and understand how to run a business....

[Lauer]

I should of said only for the money

[Smile on Impact]

Then again, there's always people who are talented producers and understand how to run a business....

no way man.

you have to be only interested in making music for yourself.

anyone that want's to spread their music to as many peeps as possible is a SELLOUT!

it's of much greater integrity, to have a job you hate and only be able to dedicate 10% of your waking life, to your 'art'.







seriously, tho.
everyone wants something different out of music.
I want to do this for a living one day soon. I am not capable of writing 'bubble gum pop' I don't have it in me. But I if was to make music, that i thought was unusual or weird or heavy or complex, It would be almost unlistenable to 99% of people. and what's the point in that?
So I'm gonna do what works for me and I'm gonna spend each cent in they way that get's me the best results. This will allow me to get paid for what i do and spend all my time doing it.

If you cats don't want that, great.
but, why don't you start a thread about how to be an artistic genius?
you might write something worth reading.

[Hatsudai]

anyone that want's to spread their music to as many peeps as possible is a SELLOUT!

Dont get this TBH. Wanting to spread what you do as art aint sellout, if you believe in something you do and want people to hear/see it how is that selling out? Changing what you actually create to pander to others =sellout IMO

trust me I sold out years ago

end hijack of otherwise interesting thread!

[Blaxter]

I'm looking forward to the tutorial on how to cut costs on production in order to finance promoting music without selling out.

[same o]

too many shit dj's around producers around.

You spin me right round, baby
right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby

[Direkt]

Far out some people just like to argue points.

[fonk]

shut up dude.

ever mastered a track for radio ?

mastering for radio, generally pulls out most of the sub bass and compresses the heck out of the total track.

Hahaha

Sorry dude, but you've got no idea.

It's the radio stations themselves who compress the snot out of everything. So why on earth would you give a radio station a more smashed version? The LAST thing you want to give a radio station is a super compressed/limited track!


Q. What happens when you smash the snot out of something that has already had the snot smashed out of it?


As for pulling out sub bass, that's just standard MIXING, and should never be left for mastering anyway. You don't ever want a bunch of overly loud un-needed sub frequencies in your tracks (and yes, this goes for drum & bass, dubstep, whatever!) because they eat up headroom (obviously!) and the radio stations limiters (and indeed your own) will grab them and smash the track even more.

The amount of d&b and dubstep that has WAY too hot sub freqs is ridiculous. Most people never seem to learn that less is more when it comes to sub freqs.

At the end of the day, if your tune is well-mixed and well-mastered, it will sound better on radio, or tv, or wherever it is played.

But smashing the snot out of it for radio is the WORST thing you can do, because the added radio station limiting and compression will then simply make your tune sound QUIETER, and distorted.

If that's what you want, then go for it.

The only medium that requires specific mastering is vinyl.

[FoundationStepper]

uhh if stations are going to reduce the dynamic range in order to maximise perceived loudness, then already reducing the dynamic range in the way you want its not going to do harm id think.

if there aint errant peaks for them to grab on to and compress then the compressor just wont have as much of a job to do.

i also fail to see how it would contribute to distortion

[a1studmuffin]

ever mastered a track for radio ? mastering for radio, generally pulls out most of the sub bass and compresses the heck out of the total track.

It's the radio stations themselves who compress the snot out of everything. So why on earth would you give a radio station a more smashed version? The LAST thing you want to give a radio station is a super compressed/limited track!

+1. For anyone who disbelieves, read this:
http://www.orban.com/support/orban/tech ... th_1.3.pdf

The only medium that requires specific mastering is vinyl.

+2. Vinyl physically requires a different master of the track. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

Thread closed.

[FoundationStepper]

Wow. Nice link thanks.

"This is true in only one aspect—if there is
no long-term dynamic range coming in, then the broadcast processor’s AGC will not
further reduce it. However, the broadcast processor will still operate on the short-term
envelopes of hypercompressed material and will further reduce the peak-to-average
ratio, degrading the sound even more."

I think this seems to make sense according my earlier post on dynamic range - but the detail on how they deal with clipped transients was really interesting, and points out i wasn't aware of the full picture. Still, preparing a track for radio/cd shouldn't mean clipping anyway!

never heard of phase rotation before. cool

"The practical effect of this non-linear phase response is that flat tops in the
original signal can end up anywhere in the waveform after processing. It’s common to
see them go right through a zero crossing."

[Spherix]

why the hell would you "master for radio" lol

the radios pre transmission devices ie limiters and compressors (as fonk said) determine what freqs will show up, you master for all systems, or different for vinyl (which will be played thru radio anyways)

stupid.

[Flash]

lol good read

[Lephrenic]

Rick O'Neill of Turtlerock Mastering wrote an article for Audio Technology on mastering for radio. I can't find it online so I'm just quoting straight from the magazine.

It's not the multiband radio limiter... It's the extra setting that's never supposed to be used except as a protection mechanism... It's the antennae overload protection limiter that causes the actual drama...

... Every radio station has a limiter that's designed to keep them safely on the air. If a DJ accidentally knocks his microphone in the middle of an announcement, a low frequency spike of anywhere between 1dB and 50dB is shot through the entire system and the consequences of this would be very 'financially troubling' for the radio station, since it would cause the speakers of every radio tuned into that station to blow up!

... These limiters are nasty and should rarely be heard; they clamp down on the signal sometimes as much as 40:1 and hold it at a set level, often for 30 seconds or more, until the 'disaster' is over.

... check out the Oz classic Run To Paradise by The Choirboys. In its heyday I cut a specific radio single of that tune that sounded great on the radio and the tune was a big hit. Twenty years later that radio version is now lost and what gets played on the radio is the album track off the CD. When I hear it now, the protection limiters hit on the first "baby!" and crush and clamp down on the song for the next 30-50 seconds...

[Lauer]

The amount of d&b and dubstep that has WAY too hot sub freqs is ridiculous. Most people never seem to learn that less is more when it comes to sub freqs.

Who is most people? Is this just something you've read from a book or something you actually know from years and years of mixing or production experience?

Is less is more based on "louder is better" because more headroom is available with less sub frequencies?

And what frequencies are you talking about here anyway? 30hz or 40z and below?

Dnb and dubstep are all about sub bass

[same o]

now who is the master-er
????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Smile on Impact]

I don't need to stress anymore.
This thread takes care of it's self.


good shit

[same o]

good shit

i did one b4 was sick!

[Direkt]

good shit

i did one b4 was sick!

Like Fidel Gastro stylee?

[same o]

good shit

i did one b4 was sick!

Like Fidel Gastro stylee?

didnt smell bad, but was sum1 what epic.

blood vesel popping out on face and ting

[Smile on Impact]

good shit

i did one b4 was sick!

Like Fidel Gastro stylee?

There was a joint in Olso called 'Gastro Cafe'

sounds delicious

[Direkt]

Goodtimes for none right now.

[Blaxter]

didnt smell bad, but was sum1 what epic.

blood vesel popping out on face and ting

What's you new track called and where is it going to be mastered?

[youthful_implants]

Then again, there's always people who are talented producers and understand how to run a business....

no way man.

you have to be only interested in making music for yourself.

anyone that want's to spread their music to as many peeps as possible is a SELLOUT!

it's of much greater integrity, to have a job you hate and only be able to dedicate 10% of your waking life, to your 'art'.







seriously, tho.
everyone wants something different out of music.
I want to do this for a living one day soon. I am not capable of writing 'bubble gum pop' I don't have it in me. But I if was to make music, that i thought was unusual or weird or heavy or complex, It would be almost unlistenable to 99% of people. and what's the point in that?
So I'm gonna do what works for me and I'm gonna spend each cent in they way that get's me the best results. This will allow me to get paid for what i do and spend all my time doing it.

If you cats don't want that, great.
but, why don't you start a thread about how to be an artistic genius?
you might write something worth reading.

:yawn:

anything would be better than this thread of fail.

spreading mis-information? you should spend more time listening than yapping.

[Smile on Impact]

anything would be better than this thread of fail.

spreading mis-information? you should spend more time listening than yapping.

anything you specifically disagree with ?

[Blaxter]

Speaking on behalf of myself, I disagree with your personal comments or unreferenced ideas.

[Smile on Impact]

That's inspecific

[Blaxter]

The lack of referenced ideas and large volume of information you posted that was either incorrect or personal opinion reduced the ability for this thread to have some real usefulness apart from a bit of shit slinging.

[Smile on Impact]

powerstruggle: Nice Very nice..

Rzile: very nice, got some good tips from your article. thanks!

Pro Tool: good work dude, very clear and concise. a bfore and after example would be awesome and maybe a few suggested plugs for the limiting etc. extra points if you can point out freebies!

It's just that you some of guys love to argue.

every specific concept that anyone has disagreed with in this thread, has been addressed in other posts.

If you just don't like the idea that made this thread, that's fine.

I'm quite happy to accept that you don't like the idea of promoting music, it just means you want somthing else out of music, than i.

It may be the reason why I've never heard any of your music.
?