#1682091 - 06/17/05 10:28 AM
Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Anderson Council Sound
Senior Member
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 177
Loc: Florida,UNITED STATES
|
Offline
|
|
OK, as I'm sure a bunch of you all here do, I'm often forced to do "mastering" for alot of my clients for 2 reasons.
1) They don't have the $3000 to get it mastered by a "real" mastering engineer or
2) I do not personally know any mastering engineers that I can trust to do a good job for a fair amount.
This does not apply to the bands who are on indie labels and such, that stuff always gets handeled by the right people.
I have alot of trouble getting my "mastered" mixs to be as loud and full as the "pro" releases, and I'm tired of trying and in the process butchering my mixs just to get it LOUD! I know how wrong all of this is, nobody needs to remind me of it here. I also don't have a desire to learn what mastering engineers do to achieve this.
Instead, I'd like to hear how many people out there do mastering on a regular/semi-regular basis? If possible I'd like to hear some samples of what you can do, and some rates you charge for both simple demo projects as well as full blown album projects. When I'm done mixing, I'll just send it up to you for mastering, and I can keep the rest of my hair in place! 
And I guess what I need more than anything else is another set of ears to put the final polish on things. I used to send my stuff to another local studio, but that bastard stole one of my bands by undercutting my rate, so I'd like to deal with people who actually do mastering, (or someone out of state!) and not just another recording studio who will eq and smash the album.
Thanks for any advice!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682092 - 06/17/05 03:27 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Philip O'Keefe
10k Club
Registered: 12/17/00
Posts: 17674
Loc: Riverside,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
1) They don't have the $3000 to get it mastered by a "real" mastering engineer...
The last outside mastering job I had done cost well under a grand, and was definitely a "pro job". I had it done by Bill Dooley, who moderates the Studio Business Forum here on Musicplayer.
I highly recommend him. 
http://www.paramountrecording.com/studioe.html
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682093 - 06/17/05 07:36 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Matt.Hepworth
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 2972
Loc: Riverdale, UT
|
|
Offline
|
|
Under a grand, Phil? That sounds incredibly reasonable for someone of his caliber. I've heard great things about Trevor Sadler from MasterMind Productions (dot net) and I know his rates are very reasonable for independents. There's also Massive Mastering that frequents the board.
I've had a very good experience with The Mastering Lab (part of DiscMakers) and they're under $500 if you're doing your duplication with them.
_________________________
No matter how good something is, there will always be someone blasting away on a forum somewhere about how much they hate it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682094 - 06/17/05 08:30 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Chris Carter
Senior Member
Registered: 08/22/04
Posts: 53
Loc: Oakland, CA, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Please don't take this the wrong way, but...
Are you sure it's your mastering that is preventing you from getting loud tunes? I say this because mixing does in fact have a LOT to do with it. When I mix I always make a test of my mix with a limiter on it. Nothing else, just the limiter, and not a great one either, I just use the built in limiter in Adobe Audition (which is my two track editor). I have a certain volume that I always shoot for which is pretty much the "average" of most CDs and also the volume some of the mastering engineers I really respect (one or two of which often master my stuff) usually shoot for. If I get distortion with that limiter, I go back to my mix and tweak it.
The reason is that I've found that despite the wonders of things like the L2 and such, the reality is that if I have a problem with distortion limiting it on my own, even the L2, or the Weiss, or whatever, will cause way more artifacts that I would like. At that point, the mastering engineer will have to start "manhandling" the mix by doing all that evil stuff like multibanding it and uber-compressing it to get around the problem.
That said, if you want your stuff to be as loud as the REALLY loud CDs out there, you have absolutely no choice but to compress the holy bejesus out of it and/or multiband it because the laws of physics are against you.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682095 - 06/18/05 01:09 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Matt.Hepworth
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 2972
Loc: Riverdale, UT
|
|
Offline
|
|
I don't entirely agree with your post. You do need a medium level on your mix, but in no way should you try to make a mix LOUD, IMO. Maybe that's not what you're suggesting? A truly good mastering engineer will take your good mix and make it better, and louder, if that's the goal. Why should we compromise the mix sound just so a mastering engineer can squash it easier?
_________________________
No matter how good something is, there will always be someone blasting away on a forum somewhere about how much they hate it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682096 - 06/18/05 02:39 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Chris Carter
Senior Member
Registered: 08/22/04
Posts: 53
Loc: Oakland, CA, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Perhaps I mispoke, I was not saying to make a loud mix. There is often little correlation between how loud a mix sounds vs. how loud it can be reasonably made in mastering. What I was talking about is more understanding how certain frequencies, certain types of waveforms and certain kinds of transients affect a limiter's ability to sound transparent. As well, understanding how dynamic range is perceived by the listener can often allow you to decrease the technical dynamic range without affect the perceived dynamic range in ways that don't kill transient response. So essentially you are delivering a mix that doesn't incure as much sonic degredation to get it to a nice loud level in mastering. Really bad-ass mix engineers are very good at delivering these kinds of mixes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682097 - 06/18/05 09:35 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Anderson Council Sound
Senior Member
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 177
Loc: Florida,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Chris, I understand what your trying to say, and in some situations, I agree. I always try to make sure the low mids are tight and that my low end is not flabby in my mixes, because I have found that a muddy or bass heavy mix will not limit as well as one with proper ratios of low/mid/high freq's. I do not, however, mix with loudness in mind, nor try to get my mix levels anywhere near major releases. I will mix with CDs the bands bring in to get a sound close to their fav bands, but that's about the extent of it. What my problem is is a little different, and maybe I wasn't specific enough in my original post.
When I'm working on an indie label project, I usually just record it, and others mix and master it, so I'm not concerned with that.
On the big album projects from unsigned bands, I usually produce or co produce, and thus I am left to mix the album as I see fit, and I don't have the band sitting in the back of the room asking for their instrument louder than everybody else, or insane levels of 40 hz in the bass gtr or kick drum, etc. I am always happy with the way these mixes come out in the end.
I'm also pretty happy with my "mastering" efforts, although I always cringe when it comes time for the L2, because I do have to crank it way more than I would like to. But judging by the major releases, they limit to the same level, because the dynamics will look identical. Major CDs always distort my studios playback systems and slam all my needles and meters to full scale and stay there untill the song ends too, and my "masters" do the same.
The problem I have is bands always ask for "a little more volume", and I am loathe to do it. When they bring in comparrison CDs for me, my "masters" are about a db or 2 lower than the majors, but to me, this is not a problem. The band, however, wants theirs to be just as loud as Limp Biscuit or whatever. I understand the need, but to me a db or 2 is "close enough", esp. when I know what I'm doing to the mixs in the first place to get them there. Add to that the fact that some of their CDs vary by a db or 2, it seems even less important.
I've had much better success mastering stuff I never recorded and mixed. What I think my problem actually is is that by the time I get to the mastering stage, I'm kinda burned out on the project. I remember how it was difficult to get such-an-such to sit right, or whatever, and I'm working in the same room it was recorded and mixed in, so I'm using headphones thru most of the mastering, as well as a few trips out to the car. I know this is not the way to master, and I used to send my stuff to another engineer in another RECORDING studio, but he stole a band of mine he liked. These were good clients who did several projects with me, and went to him when he offered them half of my rate, and I couldn't match that price and still eat. It's a shame too, because everybody liked his mastering jobs.
Anyway, when I compare my "masters" with the original mixs, I am not happy with what I hear. The mixs are clearer, while the masters get a little muddy in the low mids and sound a little dull and lifeless. I can't seem to correct this with eq or even MB compression, and I'm not really intrested in learning how to "master", being I'm a recording studio. I'm also really getting tired of bands insisting on "a little more volume" and not listening when I tell them I did the best I could and I'm not a mastering engineer.
I don't want to short-change my clients, and I sure as hell don't want my masters going out the door if I can get them done better elsewhere. I'd rather the liner notes say "Recorded and mixed by Marty, mastered by Jon Doe" and have it sound killer than have "everything done by Marty" and have it sound only so-so.
Maybe part of the problem is my mixs, and I'm willing to entertain that idea, and a ME would be able to call me and tell me "look, you are a little weak in the 1k range, you might want to pay more attention to that area next time". But sinse I'm only comming up short by a db or so, I think I'm just doing the wrong thing while "mastering". When my stuff was mastered by the "band stealer", everything sounded fine too, so I really think its just me.
Sorry for such a long post, I'm currently fretting over a "mastering" job I'm doing, so I guess I'm venting!
Marty
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682098 - 06/18/05 09:47 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Anderson Council Sound
Senior Member
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 177
Loc: Florida,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Chris Carter:
As well, understanding how dynamic range is perceived by the listener can often allow you to decrease the technical dynamic range without affect the perceived dynamic range in ways that don't kill transient response. [/QB]
Thanks for all your comments.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682099 - 06/18/05 09:58 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
where02190
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 11/06/01
Posts: 5402
Loc: Weymouth, Ma. USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Approximately 70% of our mixing is mastered inhouse. The rest we send to Jonathan Wyner @ M-Works who does fantastic work, and typically gets the job done for well under a grand. We can cut that cost in 1/2 generally if it's done inhouse.
I completely dissagree that you need to compromise your mix in order to have a loud finished product. Yes things sound different loud that at lower levels, but in general if it sounds good at moderate to low levels, it will sound great at loud volumes, but the opposite is definitely NOT true. Mixing at loud volumes results in a very inferior sounding mix at lower levels.
_________________________
Hope this is helpful. NP Recording Studios Analog approach to digital recording.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682100 - 06/18/05 01:35 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Chris Cavell
Senior Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 94
Loc: US
|
|
Offline
|
|
Just to let anyone know who's interested in the results of a fairly informal, anonymous survey answered by 45 mastering engineers (including myself) spread across the U.S.:
56% of the engineers surveyed responded that the typical rock album (defined in this survey as 12 to 14 songs, roughly 60 minutes long, with average engineering but not superbly engineered recordings) charge somewhere between $500 and $1000 dollars.
22% expect it to cost b/w $1000 and $1500.
16% expect a cost b/w $1500 and $2000.
Only 1 of the engineers polled stated a cost of 3 grand or higher. (I expect that this engineer works almost exclusively with labels and has come to expect and take advantage of the typical 4 grand mastering budget from a major.)
What does this mean?...Well, I know of personally at least 25 quality professional Mastering Engineers spotted around the country who wouldn't expect to charge you more than a grand tops...myself included. I know a good 12 or so who's typical work costs b/w $500 and $600. Lack of a budget should be less of a concern armed with this information.
To adress your questions though:
Getting a master loud is ime most effective when the goal of the project being loud was determined before the first mic was even selected. Trasparent loudness starts with the production. If the song isn't produced in such a way that makes it capable of being pushed to the limit, then trying to achieve such insane levels ONLY at the mastering stage will most often yield absolutely awful fidelity. About the highest you can push a tune that wasn't engineered for extreme levels from the beginning, even with the absolute top of the line equipment for the job, is around -14 dB RMS (300 ms integration) before it starts to sound like total crap.
Beyond that point, the amount of extreme compression and limiting required to push it every additional dB grows exponentially.
Cheers,
Chris
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682101 - 06/18/05 02:42 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Chris Carter
Senior Member
Registered: 08/22/04
Posts: 53
Loc: Oakland, CA, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Trasparent loudness starts with the production.
Major CDs always distort my studios playback systems
But back to the main point (don't want to start another thread on the loudness wars), one of the things I do is try to attend the mastering sessions when someone good is doing the mastering and it's done in the area. Aside from the benefits of being able to give good feedback to the ME while they are working, you can learn a lot from what they are doing. I always take notes of what they did to my mixes, what EQs they used and what settings, how they limited, any any other kinds of processing. It tells me a lot, especially if I notice general trends. Then I always stick around while the ME is making the production master. I take that opportunity to get the ME's feedback on what were troublesome issues to deal with and ask advice on things I could improve to get closer to the ideally perfect sound I have in my head. Those chit-chats have done a lot to improve my mixes. And in reference to your primary concern regarding "loudness" I've definitely improved my ability to deliver mixes that can be made louder without incurring as much distortion or negative asthetics. Not to mention that you get to learn how to do good mastering.
That all said, at some point you have to be realistic with your clients. The reality is that those REALLY loud CDs out there are highly comprimised sonically. Your clients don't have teh benefit of knowing what the raw mixes sounded like before mastering so they might not get it, but try to explain it to there. There is only so far you can go and the games labels play when they want stuff REALLY loud is, "which is better for us: a slightly better sounding CD that is average volume, or a slightly worse sounding CD that is the loudest thing on the planet". Sometimes they chose the latter unfortunately.
One thing you can do is ask your clients to pick their favorite CDs. Or better yet, pick the albums at the top of the charts. Then load those tracks into your editor and flip around comparing the volume of them in front of the client. Chances are there will be little correlation between the perceived volume and how fast they ran to the store to buy that CD or how many people in the country bought that CD. THEN you can say, "okay, now we know that LOUDER doesn't necessarily mean better or more sales... so I can give you the loud and distorted and sonically comprimised CD or I can give you the GOOD sounding CD that's 1.5dB quieter".
Hope that helps (at least a little.... I think I was mostly just rambling....)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682102 - 06/18/05 03:56 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
where02190
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 11/06/01
Posts: 5402
Loc: Weymouth, Ma. USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
$3000 buys 5 hours of Bob Ludwigs time.
_________________________
Hope this is helpful. NP Recording Studios Analog approach to digital recording.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682103 - 06/19/05 09:40 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Anderson Council Sound
Senior Member
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 177
Loc: Florida,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
I only said $3000 because it's the upper most I've heard of for a mastering job. I didn't mean to imply that every project would cost that much, only that I cannot afford to send anybody Bob Ludwig.
Yes, I lecture every young band that asks for "more volume", and show them in my DAW what is done, but it's as if I'm speaking German to them.
"Yes, we understand what you are telling us, but we only want it a bit louder, can't you just do that?"
They just don't care. Even tho the "problem clients" are usually young kids, I still want everything with my name on it to be the best it can be. I don't want anybody to wish they had 2 db more volume, even if every other aspect of the album sounds perfect. People also do stupid things like book a studio only if they have Pro Tools or Neumanns, so I don't want to lose a potential project by not having previous ones loud enough, regardless of how foolish we all know that way of thinking is.
I appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions, but the intent of my post was not to discuss the loudness wars, or even to learn what I'm doing wrong. I basicly wanted to cast out a net to find out who here does mastering, check out their work and rates, and start to send out all my work to them.
I've never personally sent anything to a real ME before, and there appears to be no mastering studios in the area here, so I cannot offer my clients the quality mastering they should be getting. I've learned a hell of alot just by visiting here every morning, and I respect alot of opinions here. I know ME's visit here too, so I thought I should try and see if I can lure them out.
I don't do a ton of work, but it's enough to keep me out of trouble. Realisticly, I do anywhere from 4 to 8 independant projects a year that would need this kind of treatment. I'm just trying to find someone who can get things squashed properly so I'm not destroying things by doing what the client asks of me.
Marty
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682104 - 06/19/05 10:20 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Chris Carter
Senior Member
Registered: 08/22/04
Posts: 53
Loc: Oakland, CA, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Anthony Casuccio at xtream audio: http://www.xtreamaudio.com/ He's in NY, great guy, did two albums of mine, one of the singles charted nationally. Has great ears and great asthetics; very easy to work with. I don't give quotes for other people, but he's incredibly inexpensive and from your posts I think you could afford him. Tell him I sent you, he'll take good care of you.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682105 - 06/19/05 10:47 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Tedly Nightshade
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 4649
Loc: applegate,OR,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Here's a link to some educational material for your clients!
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.p...078620f4f193968
jpg halfway down the page.
_________________________
A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!
"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682106 - 06/21/05 12:14 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Michael Hart
Senior Member
Registered: 10/27/04
Posts: 53
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
|
Offline
|
|
This has been a great post - you can tell just how important the mastering is - not forgetting the actual recording and the mix.
A couple of thoughts. Some clients need educating about the VOLUME thing. I realize that the genre is important ( if it's rock =loud) but in some case putting on Michael Buble, Diana Krall, Alison Kraus, Norah Jones etc.. can also reveal that what the buyer likes is CLARITY, BEAUTY, MOOD, EMOTION. Those things count more than volume at times - they are ingredients of sounding good. We should remember what the public is choosing too.
Lastly, Ronny Morris of Digitak Mastering gets rave reviews for his mixes at the yahoo aw 4416 web site. The price is certainly below $1000. Check him out.
Michael Hart
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682107 - 06/21/05 03:33 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
PBBPaul
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 07/31/02
Posts: 2946
Loc: Wonderful World of Cheese - Wi...
|
|
Offline
|
|
Look up one of our forum members - Bill Roberts You can find his info here. He recently mastered a project for me and did an unbelievable job. He has some of my testimony on his site and I stand by it. His rates are very good considering the quality.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682108 - 06/22/05 08:57 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Anderson Council Sound
Senior Member
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 177
Loc: Florida,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Thanks again for all the recomendations guys, I do feel alot better now knowing that my mastering needs can probally be met with a reasonable rate.
I've been thinking about what Chris said in his previous posts about compression and apparant loudness while mixing...
Can you elaborate a bit on this concept? When I'm mixing, I'm concerned only with the clarity and balance of the mix, and I'm not trying to get anything loud for the sake of being loud. How, for example would you compress a kick drum for a emo-rock group like Weezer using this philosophy? Would you forgo a compressor and go instead to the L1 or something similar? How about gtrs? Vocals?
I compress mainly to even out dynamics or smooth out rough edges. I do not try to squash the beejezbus out of anything, is this where "I am going wrong"? Are you saying I should be compressing to try and make things loud, instead of "even"? Please detail some ratio settings for specific instruments so I can get a better idea.
As I've said earlier, I am happy with my mixes, and they are portable, so it's not like I am asking "how to compress a rock kick drum". I'd like to see how your methods differ from mine, if at all. If you do something to it that I don't, that may allow you to get that extra volume.
And it is almost always a young rock group that asks for loudness. Jazz and even older rock bands don't seem to mind a slightly softer level.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682109 - 06/22/05 10:17 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
gaotu
Senior Member
Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 211
Loc: Indianapolis
|
|
Offline
|
|
This has been a great post, and Anderson, I hear your woahs... all too LOUD (and squashed).
Last night the band I recently recorded came back to me saying that they were putting their previous CD (recorded at my most equivalent competitor's studio in town) together with the one recorded by me, and his was louder, and they persisted to ask me to get it s loud as his. So we mixed a little different and I compressed some more. I tightened up the multiband I had on the main bus and printed to the Alesis Masterlink, where I then again applied even more compression at about 5:1 on the very top of it where there was about 4 db of visible dynamics (via masterlink meters).
The result: the dynamics didn't seem to far removed from before, but then...
I PUT IN THE COMPETITORS CD (of a different band), AND DAMN IF IT WASN'T LOUDER SOUNDING BY PROBABLY 2 DB!!!
That CD didn't sound anymore compressed than mine. I know that he doesn't send his stuff out to a ME either. What gives? I know I can't get it any louder without squashing it even more, and I really think it's squashed to the max now (at least with my abilities and gear).
Maybe it is my mixing and not the amatuer mastering job I'm trying to apply. Maybe it's the band's arrangement (they had a million layers of metal guitars all in nearly the same range). I just don't know. Would owning something like Soundforge or some other mastering program make a big difference?
(I'm using Sonar 4 PE... no two track editor except for the Masterlink.)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682110 - 06/22/05 02:16 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Chris Cavell
Senior Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 94
Loc: US
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Anderson Council Sound:
I've been thinking about what Chris said in his previous posts about compression and apparant loudness while mixing...
Can you elaborate a bit on this concept? When I'm mixing, I'm concerned only with the clarity and balance of the mix, and I'm not trying to get anything loud for the sake of being loud. How, for example would you compress a kick drum for a emo-rock group like Weezer using this philosophy? Would you forgo a compressor and go instead to the L1 or something similar? How about gtrs? Vocals?
I compress mainly to even out dynamics or smooth out rough edges. I do not try to squash the beejezbus out of anything, is this where "I am going wrong"? Are you saying I should be compressing to try and make things loud, instead of "even"? Please detail some ratio settings for specific instruments so I can get a better idea.
Only once you've learned the 'rules' can you break them intentionally to yield the desired result.
If you take all that you've learned in the process of making clean and clear mixes and incorporate that into your instinct...make it all second nature...you can begin to look at recording from additional angles. For example, engineering from a clarity standpoint to engineering from a production standpoint.
If you start to look at it from that view while engineering, you might discover affects of processors that aren't normally 'taught' that can help you achieve a desired sound (which may not be a 'clear' sound depending on the production ideal of the project). For example, every sound has an ADSR curve...what is seldom talked about is the fact that each part of the curve contains different frequencies. Thought of from this standpoint, compressors take on a larger role than merely "smoothing out dynamics", they become transhient shaping tools that affect timbre as well. (A good example is the use of gating on toms not as a bleed reduction tool, but as a means to reduce ringing, or on a kick to shape an ultra fast false attack to cut though a distorted bass track.)
On the same token, EQ's, because of the differing frequencies in the ADSR curve, also shape dynamic response.
Sidechains become more than de-esser tools, but a means to allow certain parts to cut through an ultra-dense mix when they need to.
But beyond all of this, you may find yourself micing something a certain way to emphasize the sound you want for the production or how that sound interacts with what follows processing-wise, not for it's pristine sound.
In a day and age where engineers are becoming increasingly specialized, those that advance to and beyond this point often become more 'producer' and less 'engineer'...or in some cases, film sound designers, using these approaches (and more) to turn a bird chirp into a blood curdling sea-monster's wail of pain as it's flesh is pierced by a harpoon.
What it boils down to isn't really all that different from what you've been doing up till now...it's just a slightly different philosophical approach to engineering a record that happens to open you up to different potentials. The mix is no longer always about being clear...but instead is always about being the right mix for the song. In the case of 'loud productions', it may have you choosing mics and placements for how well they cut through in addition to their sound, choosing compressors for their sound rather than dynamics processing, and eq'ing to push the rms of a particular signal...in addition to all the basic uses of processors you have already incorporated into your skillset.
Normally, I wouldn't recommend throwing an L1 or any other limiter on a track just to make it louder...but, if you know what you're doing, and that L1 will provide you with the desired result for the production as well as the mix, and happens to be the best means at your disposal for getting it there...then by all means, use it. Sometimes, depending on the production, you have to smash the beejeebus out of something to get the right sound for the mix necessary to achieve the production ideal for that tune.
Cheers,
Chris
"Nothing is too difficult if it produces a beautiful result."
-Julia Child
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682111 - 06/22/05 05:09 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
gaotu
Senior Member
Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 211
Loc: Indianapolis
|
|
Offline
|
|
Thanks for the insights Chris. Good stuff.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682112 - 06/22/05 05:23 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
gaotu
Senior Member
Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 211
Loc: Indianapolis
|
|
Offline
|
|
For those of you who have mastered your own work a lot or the work of others: Is there a common problem area in mixes that make mastering a more difficult job - a frequency that's too low/high - an area that is overly muddy - an instrument/voice that is often too high? Maybe I should ask, are there any pointers on what to do in the recording/mixing phase to make a more polished, high-level mix in the end that is closer to the mastered sound, or easier to master?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682113 - 06/22/05 08:14 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Chris Cavell
Senior Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 94
Loc: US
|
|
Offline
|
|
gaotu,
I'd have to say, obviously this changes quite a bit with genre, that I often find in the mixes I receive for mastering, a single band of problem frequencies. Either the engineer has great lows and mids, but a bad mix in the upper end...or great upper end and bottom, but no clarity in the mids...most commonly it's the bottom or the mids that have problems though.
The bottom end is either clear as a bell, or thick as mud...pretty easy to tell which from an engineering standpoint I think...even if you aren't in the best monitoring environment, you can usually discover this problem by simply playing it on a couple of different systems. The mids can get tricky though...if you find you've got mid issues and can't seem to get it quite right with eq and panning, try revisiting the arrangement. Arranging the tune so that layers come and go in the mids to make room and fill room as necessary can go a long way to keep the mids from getting too clustered. Concentrating on the production in the mid range also tends to have the added benefit of helping the song progress more convincingly than trying to do so with lows and hi's.
-Chris
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682114 - 06/23/05 11:02 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Anderson Council Sound
Senior Member
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 177
Loc: Florida,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
quote:
For example, every sound has an ADSR curve...what is seldom talked about is the fact that each part of the curve contains different frequencies. Thought of from this standpoint, compressors take on a larger role than merely "smoothing out dynamics", they become transhient shaping tools that affect timbre as well. (A good example is the use of gating on toms not as a bleed reduction tool, but as a means to reduce ringing, or on a kick to shape an ultra fast false attack to cut though a distorted bass track.)
Umm...forgive my ignorance, but what is an ADSR curve? I googled it, but didn't come up with any real answer.
And I'm not sure how gating toms to reduce ringing will make things apparently louder. I don't gate them, I strip the space between hits, and apply a manual fade to the tails to sound natural. Is this similar to what your saying?
I'm sorry if I'm asking stupid questions at this point, but now my curiosoity is peaked, and I'd like to know more about this. I never considered there are certain ways to mix in order to get all this loudness, I always thought it was some mastering voodoo going on under the hood. At first glance, this seems to consist of a bit of backward thinking (like algebra; starting with the answer and finding missing elements from that) and I failed algebra miserably 3 times! 
It seems that I do need to change my method of thinking on certain projects, but I'm not sure how. Chris, you've been very helpful, but a bit vauge still. I'm sure it's me not understanding fully what you are discussing, and not your posts themselves...would you mind dumbing things down a bit for my sake? Pretty much I'm still in the dark as to what you would do differently in oder to get a project as loud as possible from the get-go.
Should I email you a few of my mixes from various artists so you can see if it's my mixes, or my mastering that is adversely effecting my final product? Should I post some common compressor settings that I use for kik and snare, or common EQ settings I use?
This is such a mystery to me because my mixes sound completly "modern" when I turn up the volume to match the level with modern CDs. i.e. the drums sound good and balanced, gtrs have the same crunch, reverbs, etc, are all comparable to a similar major release, EXCEPT that things are about 2 to 3 db softer after I master them. But the un-mastered mixes sound great when compared to the pros, so I'm confused to how my mixing is causing this. I would expect to hear some minor differences in the sound of the instruments, right?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682115 - 06/23/05 12:35 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Chris Cavell
Senior Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 94
Loc: US
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Anderson Council Sound:
Umm...forgive my ignorance, but what is an ADSR curve? I googled it, but didn't come up with any real answer.
And I'm not sure how gating toms to reduce ringing will make things apparently louder. I don't gate them, I strip the space between hits, and apply a manual fade to the tails to sound natural. Is this similar to what your saying?
I'm sorry if I'm asking stupid questions at this point, but now my curiosoity is peaked, and I'd like to know more about this. I never considered there are certain ways to mix in order to get all this loudness, I always thought it was some mastering voodoo going on under the hood. At first glance, this seems to consist of a bit of backward thinking (like algebra; starting with the answer and finding missing elements from that) and I failed algebra miserably 3 times!
It seems that I do need to change my method of thinking on certain projects, but I'm not sure how. Chris, you've been very helpful, but a bit vauge still. I'm sure it's me not understanding fully what you are discussing, and not your posts themselves...would you mind dumbing things down a bit for my sake? Pretty much I'm still in the dark as to what you would do differently in oder to get a project as loud as possible from the get-go.
Should I email you a few of my mixes from various artists so you can see if it's my mixes, or my mastering that is adversely effecting my final product? Should I post some common compressor settings that I use for kik and snare, or common EQ settings I use?
The same can be said for eq. Most beginning engineers are taught to cut more than boosting, carve spaces, etc. Once you determine how EQ also affects ADSR (or the envelope/transient response of a sound) boosts are much less of a no-no. You can boost frequencies that don't contribute to the peak level, but b/c of the boost contribute to the RMS level, thereby increasing perceived level and the track's ability to cut through a loud mix.
The key however, is to remain persistant and keep a picture of what the entire picture looks like: which is what the production of a song is. You want to do what's right for the song/production of the song. If that production requires boosting overtones that don't contribute to peak level, shaping the envelopes of sounds to extreme amounts, etc. in order to get it loud as can be...than that's totally fine, as long as it's what the song/production call for.
It's easy to talk about from a mixing point of view with all the processors at our disposal, but the same approach really needs to be applied at the micing and performance stage too. Picking instruments and placements that are conducive to the imagined appropriate sound from the get go are key. Getting the performance from the musicians that match that ideal are a must as well. This idea of letting the song dictate the processes should ideally follow all the way through the mastering.
A good example of this approach would be the new NIN 'With Teeth'. There are incredibly quiet sections, unbelievably loud sections, and certain sections as dynamic as a symphony. It's pretty obvious while listening through the album in it's entirety that every effort was made to perform, track, shape and master the sounds in exactly the way the production of the song dictated: quiet sections are mixed and tracked etc in such a way that it was conducive to the quiet section. Same with the loud, different instrument choices, changes in arrangement, etc.
A recent album where it would seem that what the song begged for was lost to the 'get it loud' approach (at at least one or more points in the chain) is the new Audioslave album. It's loud. Perioud. Bordering on hellish distortion loud. When a song slams into a chorus that seems like it was intended to move you, but doesn't...there's usually a loudness issue. On many of the songs, it's just not what the tunes asked for...it probably was what the Label asked for though, and because of this ability to say, "okay, this stuff's got to be LOUD" by the engineers and producers from the get-go, they were able to do it. It may not be a great record, but they certainly succeeded at making it one of the loudest records in history.
Another would be the latest Foo Fighters release. In this one, despite the never changing instrumentation (on the first disc)...you can hear how mic choices, placements, and more importantly, instrument choices (easily noticeable in the different snare on every track) were chosen specifically b/c they'd work best with the production on the individual track.
This is such a mystery to me because my mixes sound completly "modern" when I turn up the volume to match the level with modern CDs. i.e. the drums sound good and balanced, gtrs have the same crunch, reverbs, etc, are all comparable to a similar major release, EXCEPT that things are about 2 to 3 db softer after I master them. But the un-mastered mixes sound great when compared to the pros, so I'm confused to how my mixing is causing this. I would expect to hear some minor differences in the sound of the instruments, right?
2) It is quite possible that if the production and mix are perfect for the tune, that pushing the song those extra 2 or 3 dB ARE NOT conducive...no matter how you do it. Are you trying to get those 2 or 3 dB for the wrong reasons? Just why do you want those extra 2 or 3 dB? (do your clients request it, do you fall into the camp of people who mistakenly believe that it'll be better over the airwaves...which is not true, the processing at radio stations will actually reduce the volume of such a recording so much that it'll end up quieter than the others...Norah Jones' stuff is loud as can be on radio as a result of this radio processing b/c it isn't mastered loudly. Most people can't seem to understand this, that loud ISN'T better for FM...and was only true of AM 50 years ago before the FCC introduced fines for intermodulation distortion.)
3) Just what exactly are you comparing things too? I mean, if you're 2 or 3 dB quieter than Velvet Revolver, you're probably a good 2 to 3 dB louder than most of the good stuff out there. There are some albums that sound as 'modern' as any made today, but no-one gripes about their lack of volume compared to 'modern' recordings. Case in point, Pink Floyd. They have some of the best sounding recordings ever made...often better sounding than most 'modern' stuff...but they aren't anywhere near as loud.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682116 - 06/23/05 01:18 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Anderson Council Sound
Senior Member
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 177
Loc: Florida,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Chris Cavell:
1) What is modern? (and more importantly, is this definition of 'modern' the best choice for the tune?)
2) Are you trying to get those 2 or 3 dB for the wrong reasons?
3) Just what exactly are you comparing things too? I mean, if you're 2 or 3 dB quieter than Velvet Revolver, you're probably a good 2 to 3 dB louder than most of the good stuff out there.
1) "Modern" is any modern band the local act is trying to emulate. For instance, I just recently did a emo-rock band who brought in Weezer as a comparrison band for me. Everything sounded about right, drums, gtrs, etc, but my masters were about 3 db lower than the Weezer CD, and if I compressed more, the volume stayed about the same, but the distortion and "squishy-ness" grew.
2)I am trying to get the extra db because the clients ask me for it. I feel THEY are asking for the wrong reasons, but they don't listen when I hold my "louder is not better" classes before I master the project. I am here trying to figure out how to deliver the extra db not because I want my mixes to be louder, but because I am confused as to why I cannot get them that loud. And "the customer is always right". I don't want them going to their friends and telling them I can't record CDs that are loud enough for them.
3) I compare them to what the band wants them compared to. I do not play my mix of a hardcore band against a remaster of dark side of the moon, of course! I always have the band bring in a few CDs of bands they admire and think they sound like, or have a sound similar to what they are trying to achieve. I have found that what I like in a mix is not always how the band thinks it should sound, so I ask for these CDs in order to understand exactly what they are going for.
I think I may still have a few questions for you on this, but I'd like to let what you said today set in and I'll try to experiment with a couple of things over the weekend. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of this to me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682117 - 06/23/05 01:27 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Anderson Council Sound
Senior Member
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 177
Loc: Florida,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
real quick, chris, and I promise I'll leave you alone for the weekend, I just want to see if I'm understanding this:
Could you give me an example of using eq to increase the RMS of a track? Let's say gtr...
Would increasing the 5k to 7k range be increasing the peak level of the signal, and boosting maybe 300hz or so be increasing the RMS?
Or boosting 7k in a kik drum be boosting the peak and boosting 60 hz be the RMS?
In compressing a kick drum, I usually have the attack set around 20 to 40 ms in order to let the transient thru, and the release set to about 200 ms or so, so what I'm compressing is the decay and sustain (BTW, I knew what ADSR was, just never heard it refered to in that way!)
I also never compress going in, only during mixing. I am a purist in a sense, because I do try to avoid boosting eq as a general rule. I do of course boost quite regularly, but I always cut first to try and get rid of what I don't like, and then I boost later. Likewise while tracking, I will change the mic first, then the instrument/amp and only then resort to eq going in if I can't find what I am looking for.
I know all of this varies depending on what the song calls for, I'm looking for generalities to compare to what I do generally, and try to find where I need improvment.
Thanks!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682118 - 06/24/05 10:24 AM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
Chris Cavell
Senior Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 94
Loc: US
|
|
Offline
|
|
Typically, eq'ing to boost level without boosting peak involves boosting overtones, and is one reason why many of the ultra-loud albums out there sound kinda thin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682119 - 06/25/05 05:03 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
gaotu
Senior Member
Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 211
Loc: Indianapolis
|
|
Offline
|
|
Case in point, Pink Floyd. They have some of the best sounding recordings ever made...often better sounding than most 'modern' stuff...but they aren't anywhere near as loud.
Steely Dan too!!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682120 - 06/25/05 05:10 PM
Re: Attention Mastering engineers!
|
gaotu
Senior Member
Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 211
Loc: Indianapolis
|
|
Offline
|
|
Chris, I'm totally in the same shoes as you right now and I'd like to know what's up as well. These statements hit home with me:
1) "Modern" is any modern band the local act is trying to emulate. For instance, I just recently did a emo-rock band who brought in Weezer as a comparrison band for me. Everything sounded about right, drums, gtrs, etc, but my masters were about 3 db lower than the Weezer CD, and if I compressed more, the volume stayed about the same, but the distortion and "squishy-ness" grew.
2)I am trying to get the extra db because the clients ask me for it. I feel THEY are asking for the wrong reasons, but they don't listen when I hold my "louder is not better" classes before I master the project. I am here trying to figure out how to deliver the extra db not because I want my mixes to be louder, but because I am confused as to why I cannot get them that loud. And "the customer is always right". I don't want them going to their friends and telling them I can't record CDs that are loud enough for them.
I have a question. Does anyone feel like they loose a lot of the qualities in a mix when it's dropped from 24 bits to the CD's 16? (Is that normal?) I feel like the mix I had does loose something... not a lot, but a noticeable something. I either use Sonar 4's best dither converter or do it in the Alesis Masterlink.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
| |
