Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Tech Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Mastering home recordings
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMastering home recordings

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
cobb2 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Mastering home recordings
    Posted: August 14 2008 at 07:47

Anybody got any useful tips on mastering the final mix after exporting out as a stereo wav.

I am particularly interested in EQ to the final stereo mix, not Compression/Limiting. What settings do you use for EQ or do you set the EQ individually for each track to bring out its best character. I stress again I am talking about mastering of the final mix, not mixing EQ- I am sure any who reply to this will know the difference. Also do you use any other filters besides EQ and compression/limiter for the final mastering?

Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 08:00
I don't know the difference. I can't see why you would first create a stereo mix, export it to WAV and then apply additional effects. Why not do it all in one setting?  
Back to Top
cobb2 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 08:29

Well, because there are three steps: Recording, Mixing and Mastering.

The main job of mastering is to use Compression/Limiter filters to give it that volume boost (compression) while clipping everything over +3db and -3db (limiting). The limiting keeps distortion under control. There is usually some EQ done to the overall sound- this is what I am interested in getting opinions on. I have read a few articles which suggest a 6db boost at the 12K level (before doing the final compression). Just wondering if anybody else has any tips. 

addition: Mike, if you haven't mastered any of your recordings before, you will be amazed at the difference it can make to a final production. Most music production suites come with these compression filters in the audio effects. The one I have found most useful in Sonar is called simply 'final mix'



Edited by cobb2 - August 14 2008 at 08:37
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 08:50
^ I'm doing it all the time. I just don't understand exactly why mixing and mastering should be seen as two separate steps. For example, if you apply compression/limiter effects it can happen that you need to go back to mixing and change the volume/eq of certain instruments. It can also make a lot of sense to compress individual tracks, or use the signal of individual tracks to govern the compression level of the complete mix (called "sidechaining" in Ableton).
Back to Top
cobb2 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 09:12

Yes, but what you are doing is just part of the mixing stage- you are acting on the individual tracks to get a good mix. All I can say is that the recording and mixing was all I used to do as well. Mastering doesn't effect your mix (and won't fix a bad mix), but it will bring it to life. Honest, every record producer in the world can't be wrong.

Give yourself enough headroom under 3db on your final mix, or the limiter will clip too much signal out on the master

Back to Top
jimidom View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 02 2007
Location: Houston, TX USA
Status: Offline
Points: 570
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 10:24

If you intend to release your recording  for sale and distribution, then mastering at home is a daunting task. Take your mix to a professional mastering engineer to at least have it evaluated. Unless you have a studio set up at home with proper acoustics and really good monitors (think Genelac) like a good mastering engineer would have, you probably won't be able to truly hear your mix, imperfections and all. It's also good to have the mastering engineer's objective ears listening to your mix. Otherwise, if you fully intend to master at home, make sure that your final mix is as good as it can be with all the tweaks in compression, eq, and reverb before you export to wav and begin the mastering process. Finally, read this article.

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST

Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 11:32
^ I still don't see why - if I decide to do it myself - I should do a mix, export it to wav and *then* do the mastering. I read the article ... one thing these guys complained about was that they're often given mixes which contain too many effects like compression, which can not be taken out of the mix. Why export it and then master, when you can do it all in one setting - you'll be able to tweak every effect.
Back to Top
jimidom View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 02 2007
Location: Houston, TX USA
Status: Offline
Points: 570
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 12:45
The guys in the article were talking about this.
 
 
That waveform shows a recording that is too loud (notice the "flattop"... that's called clipping) with no dynamics. In other words, it's not very musical. How does that happen? There was too much compression.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST

Back to Top
mr70s View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 21 2008
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 15:44
Originally posted by cobb2 cobb2 wrote:

I am particularly interested in EQ to the final stereo mix, not Compression/Limiting.

 
This approach sounds more appropriate for classical, folk or acoustic instruments. In other words retaining a wide dynamic range. Who will be the final listener ? Think about their audio equipment.
What recordings can you use as a reference point ? Give your ears a rest, and listen to other music.
Get your ears checked : I spent many hours mixing an album that I thought sounded dull. I tweaked the eq, but then had my ears syringed. When I listened again, I was horrified by what I had done !
Remember : less is more. And don't worry, even the pros make mistakes !
 
Back to Top
cobb2 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 19:08

Jimdom- really good article, but not much real advice other than 'don't try this at home'. I am not trying to produce a saleable product, but just something for my own benefit- and I am limited to what Sonar can offer. And it has been obvious, even from my own amateurish attempts, that doing the mixing stage with a final mastering stage in mind is the best way to go. It certainly enhances the final mix. I don't compress any track in mixing stage, leaving compression only for the mastering stage.

But we seem to be off track a little and everyone is centering on compression. I always leave enough headroom in the final mix so as not to get the waveform that is shown above. Though I have done this in my early experimentation with mastering and know that it is caused from a mix where the levels are too high ie. you are mixing for the most volume without thinking of what will happen in the mastering stage.

Still looking for advice or tips on the EQ at the mastering stage.

Back to Top
cobb2 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 19:31
Originally posted by mr70s mr70s wrote:

This approach sounds more appropriate for classical, folk or acoustic instruments. In other words retaining a wide dynamic range. Who will be the final listener ? Think about their audio equipment.
What recordings can you use as a reference point ? Give your ears a rest, and listen to other music.
Get your ears checked : I spent many hours mixing an album that I thought sounded dull. I tweaked the eq, but then had my ears syringed. When I listened again, I was horrified by what I had done !
Remember : less is more. And don't worry, even the pros make mistakes !
 

I don't think this approach is suitable only for accoustic music, but I am in agreement about the less is more and I like making mistakes- it forces you to learn. Funny you should mention the ear problem. My ears fill with wax all the time- something about spending too much time in the water as a youngster and my ears began to close up, now the wax doesn't get out- I now need to get them syringed out all the time.

Perhaps you might like to take the time to listen to some samples in my 'Music in the digital age' thread in Tech Talk and throw me some advice. I am not particularly happy with what I am producing- or put down some of your experiences here.

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 20:05
Another feature of the mastering stage is to level off (tone and volume) all the tracks into a coherent whole, so that the finished CD sounds as if it was recorded as a complete album rather than a collection of individual tracks. EQ at this stage can be used to set the overall tone of the album as well as making minor adjustments to individual tracks - EQ can also be used to enhance the relative loudness of individual tracks without resorting to compression so that the dynamics of whole CD are brought into play and used creatively.
 
Doing the EQ and compression at this stage, rather than during the mix-down allows you to step back and hear the final recording as a finished song, rather than worrying the minutiae of individual elements, such as whether the bass has enough headroom against the kick-drums or whatever, and so preventing you from fiddling and tweaking individual instruments. One advantage of taking the final mix to a specialist mastering engineer is that they are not interested in the mix, and only listen to the final version - when doing this at home you should attempt to put yourself in their shoes and try and divorce yourself from the mixing process and concentrate on this as if the mix was cast in stone.
 
The settings for EQ at mastering stage is purely down to personal preference - whether you want a warm sound or a bright one, a punchy bottom-end or a rounded one. The key at this stage is to cut not boost and to be gentle - cuts of less than 5dB and low Q (wide-bandwidth) - if you feel you need to cut (or boost) more than that then you should go back to the mix and correct the "error" there.
 
Generally for CD I would cut anything below 20Hz as a matter of course (using a paragraphic filter for example) since these ultra-low frequencies are outside the CD standard and will disrupt any compression you later apply. It is easy to see graphically whether this is completely necessary by looking at the waveform - it should be perfectly symmetrical about the centre-line and any dc offset or low-frequency rumble will show up quite visibly. For example if a section of the track has a significant  positive bias then the peaks may hit 0dB but the overall level from +ve to -ve will be considerably less - the compressor will compress this section when in reality is should be boosting it.
 
The tired-ears comment is also worth repeating - it is never a good idea to do this late at night after a heavy mixing session and you should always approach this with fresh ears.
What?
Back to Top
cobb2 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 20:21

Thanks for the excellent reply Dean. Interesting point about the frequencies outside the ISO standard. Never thought to cut these.

Also the tired ears. This also is a good point of why too many filters at the mix stage can be a problem. If you go back to your final master after a break of a few weeks and suddenly realise you have done a terrible job of it you can always redo the master, because the individual mix tracks are still there- hopefully in a condition where you can just start the master again and get it right.

So you think the advice I have read about boosting at 12K is a bad idea and I should be cutting instead?



Edited by cobb2 - August 14 2008 at 20:28
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2008 at 20:34
^ I guess you should also limit anything over 20KHz, but those frequencies rarely survive the mixing EQ whereas the lower frequencies do (and are even enhanced as a result of it).
What?
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 03:00
Originally posted by jimidom jimidom wrote:

The guys in the article were talking about this.
 
[*highly compressed waveform]
 
That waveform shows a recording that is too loud (notice the "flattop"... that's called clipping) with no dynamics. In other words, it's not very musical. How does that happen? There was too much compression.


Thanks for enlightening us on that subject.

Anyway ... I enjoyed reading the article, but it doesn't give many clues about how you can do it yourself. And why should these guys tell us ... it's their job to do the mastering, why would they suggest to anyone to do it themselves? It would be extremely bad for their business to admit that it can be done at home. But I'll agree that you probably need a lot of experience to get it right ... you need to know what to listen for, and how to solve the problems which usually occur.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 03:15
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Another feature of the mastering stage is to level off (tone and volume) all the tracks into a coherent whole, so that the finished CD sounds as if it was recorded as a complete album rather than a collection of individual tracks. EQ at this stage can be used to set the overall tone of the album as well as making minor adjustments to individual tracks - EQ can also be used to enhance the relative loudness of individual tracks without resorting to compression so that the dynamics of whole CD are brought into play and used creatively.

Why abuse the eq for that ... when you could also go back to mixing and fix the problem there (change volume of those tracks - possibly only at selected points, using automation - or apply eq to individual tracks)?
 
Doing the EQ and compression at this stage, rather than during the mix-down allows you to step back and hear the final recording as a finished song, rather than worrying the minutiae of individual elements, such as whether the bass has enough headroom against the kick-drums or whatever, and so preventing you from fiddling and tweaking individual instruments.

Sorry, but I don't see the point. Ok, working with the final mix instead of the multi track might keep you from making too many changes ... but on the other hand some problems might be very hard to fix. If you notice that an instrument is too loud, using the overall eq to turn it down also affects all the other instruments.

One advantage of taking the final mix to a specialist mastering engineer is that they are not interested in the mix, and only listen to the final version - when doing this at home you should attempt to put yourself in their shoes and try and divorce yourself from the mixing process and concentrate on this as if the mix was cast in stone.

I understand the basic idea ... but I think that this approach could also be the reason why mastering is such an expensive/daunting task. I still think that all that could be done more easily during the mixdown. You could of course do it in two steps ... first concentrate on the mix, without any compression, and then do the mastering. But if you noticed during mastering that there's a mistake in the mix, you can simply go back and fix it. I think that mastering might only be so difficult because in the traditional approach you simply cannot go back.
 
Back to Top
cobb2 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 09:55

MikeEnRegalia- You are arguing the wrong point. I think we are all in agreement that mixing is the most important stage to get the sound right (knowing that no amount of mixing will fix a bad recording). This is where all the good work must be done. But if you don't do the final mastering, your productions are missing that last, final flourish to make it shine.

Experiment with mastering a stereo mix- the difference may surprise the hell out of  you.

Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 09:59
^ I'm doing that all the time - First I try to get the tracks right, then I balance the volumes ... then I add effects (compression/saturation, eq, reverb etc) to the master (stereo) track. I'm doing all that has been described in this thread, I simply don't get why you have to finalize the mix at some point and then, regardless of what happens later on, you only work on the master track without any possibility of going back.

BTW: Of course in the old (analog) days it may simply not have been feasible. In order to return to the mixing stage you need to duplicate all the settings, which would have been a daunting task to say the least, even with top of the line automated mixing panels. 

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - August 15 2008 at 10:01
Back to Top
cobb2 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 10:07

Mastering in no way harms the mixed tracks- they are still intact in their own separate file. You are mastering a stereo export of the this mix. So, at any time you can go back to the mix, tweek it, dump it out to a stereo wav and re-master.

Like I said earlier, 6 months ago I would have argued the same points you are.

I am not that good at mastering, but I know it makes a huge difference to the music.

Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 10:10
My DAW software creates the stereo mix all the time. Please explain to me why exporting it to WAV and then mastering it should produce better results than applying the mastering effects in the DAW and then exporting it to WAV ... I don't see there should be any difference.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.238 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.