what is mastering? how do you do it without paying a heap of money? is it like intensive EQing of the entire song to get it sounding right or something?
Mastering a track
One of my friends was going on about how he knew a guy who had a band ... who recorded a song using multitrack software on the pc and it turned out good, and then the band went and took the song they made on the PC and got it professionaly mastered or somn and it sounded a whole lot betta.
what is mastering? how do you do it without paying a heap of money? is it like intensive EQing of the entire song to get it sounding right or something?
what is mastering? how do you do it without paying a heap of money? is it like intensive EQing of the entire song to get it sounding right or something?
# 1
Mastering involves a number of steps.
It's basically taking your original and adding EQ and compression to make it sound bigger, fatter, richer and louder. If more than one song is done for an album, the levels of each song are matched and the fades are made to sound smooth. All the spreads are inserted as well so the album flows seemlessly.
A decent mastering house also does a number of other things like editing and making backups etc...
A far as taking it to a pro is concerned though, my general experience is unless you're paying for a top end mastering house, you can probably do a better job yourself using software such as t-Racks.
I've always mastered my own stuff... it takes a bit of practice but there's always presets you can use to give you a starting point.
I've tried sending the same song to a mastering house and to put it bluntly, it blew chunks. (way overmastered, distorted and pumping like crazy.)
Some mastering houses are still into the 'brick wall' theory of thinking.
In other words, they compress and limit it so much that it no longer has any dynamics and is just loud. (the theory being that the louder it is, the better chance it has on the radio)
Personally, I usually do different masters for different media.
I'll do a brick wall master for MP3's but for the album release I'll do a softer mix.
If you do take it to a mastering house, check their credentials and listen to some of the stuff they've mastered. Check to see what equipment they're using and take a look at their monitoring room. Also check to see how long they've been around. The best master guys have been using the same equipment and speakers and really know how to get the best sound from experience.
Also check to see how willing they are to let you sit in on the process, or at least let you give suggestions on the final mix.
If you have high bandwidth check out the 'Anatomy of a Multitrack' tutorial I did.
http://www.guitartricks.com/lesson.php?input=7452&s_id=58
It takes you right throught the initial recording, adding compression and then finally mastering to show the differences in sound.
It's basically taking your original and adding EQ and compression to make it sound bigger, fatter, richer and louder. If more than one song is done for an album, the levels of each song are matched and the fades are made to sound smooth. All the spreads are inserted as well so the album flows seemlessly.
A decent mastering house also does a number of other things like editing and making backups etc...
A far as taking it to a pro is concerned though, my general experience is unless you're paying for a top end mastering house, you can probably do a better job yourself using software such as t-Racks.
I've always mastered my own stuff... it takes a bit of practice but there's always presets you can use to give you a starting point.
I've tried sending the same song to a mastering house and to put it bluntly, it blew chunks. (way overmastered, distorted and pumping like crazy.)
Some mastering houses are still into the 'brick wall' theory of thinking.
In other words, they compress and limit it so much that it no longer has any dynamics and is just loud. (the theory being that the louder it is, the better chance it has on the radio)
Personally, I usually do different masters for different media.
I'll do a brick wall master for MP3's but for the album release I'll do a softer mix.
If you do take it to a mastering house, check their credentials and listen to some of the stuff they've mastered. Check to see what equipment they're using and take a look at their monitoring room. Also check to see how long they've been around. The best master guys have been using the same equipment and speakers and really know how to get the best sound from experience.
Also check to see how willing they are to let you sit in on the process, or at least let you give suggestions on the final mix.
If you have high bandwidth check out the 'Anatomy of a Multitrack' tutorial I did.
http://www.guitartricks.com/lesson.php?input=7452&s_id=58
It takes you right throught the initial recording, adding compression and then finally mastering to show the differences in sound.
# 2
ive always been DIY on computers (been working with them professionally doing video editing and graphic design since age 11) but i've got a few contacts that could probably do the mastering pretty damn cheap, i was just wondering what it involves. good answer mate - you definately know what you're talking about. +1
# 3
That guy probably did home recording then had an engineer edit and tweak each track and wav file individually, just like in a studio except the takes are all done onto a home pc then burned to dvd and reuploaded to the studio work station. If you are thinking of doing that it then it is advisable to keep a number of takes of each riff/solo as the engineer may decide to edit and splice some parts because of timing or an unrepeatable lick. Everything needs to to be recorded at the highest possible bit rate in mono and saved as high quality wav files. Don't do any destructive manipulation of files eg effects, compression or normalisation if you want to get the most from the engineers experience. Hope that helps!
# 4
Originally Posted by: SuperhumanThat guy probably did home recording then had an engineer edit and tweak each track and wav file individually, just like in a studio except the takes are all done onto a home pc then burned to dvd and reuploaded to the studio work station. If you are thinking of doing that it then it is advisable to keep a number of takes of each riff/solo as the engineer may decide to edit and splice some parts because of timing or an unrepeatable lick. Everything needs to to be recorded at the highest possible bit rate in mono and saved as high quality wav files. Don't do any destructive manipulation of files eg effects, compression or normalisation if you want to get the most from the engineers experience. Hope that helps!
I think we have our terms confused.
We're talking about "Mastering". (at least I think we are)
I think what you're talking about is 'Mixing Down'
Mastering is taking the finished songs that have already been mixed down into stereo, and then applying compression/limiting, EQ etc... to the final mix so that each song is the same perceived volume on the album, has the correct gap between songs, that the songs are in the right order, that the fade outs have been properly done etc etc...
It also involves the ability to make each song sound like they came out of the same studio and that they all sound like they were played by the same band if you've recorded in several different studios or used different equipment.
In a lot of cases with top 40 stuff, it also involves making the songs 'radio competetive' by pushing them to the limit (brick wall mix) so that your songs sound louder and punchier.
A really good mastering engineer will take several days on each song (if you're willing to pay for it) using a high end system that he's worked with for years.... tweaking them from beginning to end, pushing the EQ up on the guitar frequencies when it's needed, bringing the EQ on the vocals down, or making the bass punchier without making the crashes overly loud.
Unfortunately, if you're an indie band or home recordist with limited funds, you're only going to get what you pay for.
# 5
I just thought maybe the guy had the difference mixed up himself. It's kind of pointless mastering something that hasnt been properly mixed down first. The way I look at it is the most important thing is to get the best possible quality for each individual soundfile. Anyway, point taken, mastering and mixing are completely different processes.
# 6
I think though if you put enough time and effort into it you can get pretty nice tracks done independantly.
I've always been a user and abuser of software and I've used, for example, both high end $10000 G5 packages as well as simple iBooks and PC's for Movie editing, and sure editing a video on Final Cut pro is way more powerful and time consuming and allows you to get the best out of the product, but i've found that if you know your way around simpler software like windows movie maker or iMovie you can create movies almost on par with those created by Final Cut Pro in terms of look and feel, perhaps lacking the same special effects though. Same as making Powerpoint slideshows look like Flash animations.
If the same principle applies with Audio editing then the theory would be that if I spend my time thinkin out how each track is going to be recorded (and even use manual eq's for the guitars) and then spend a lot of time in Garageband and some other 3rd party audio software then I can probably get a pretty convincing audio track going.
So in theory if i got a program that allows me to equalize parts of songs then i should be able to do an alright copy myself without contacting a studio and paying a heap of money.
I've always been a user and abuser of software and I've used, for example, both high end $10000 G5 packages as well as simple iBooks and PC's for Movie editing, and sure editing a video on Final Cut pro is way more powerful and time consuming and allows you to get the best out of the product, but i've found that if you know your way around simpler software like windows movie maker or iMovie you can create movies almost on par with those created by Final Cut Pro in terms of look and feel, perhaps lacking the same special effects though. Same as making Powerpoint slideshows look like Flash animations.
If the same principle applies with Audio editing then the theory would be that if I spend my time thinkin out how each track is going to be recorded (and even use manual eq's for the guitars) and then spend a lot of time in Garageband and some other 3rd party audio software then I can probably get a pretty convincing audio track going.
So in theory if i got a program that allows me to equalize parts of songs then i should be able to do an alright copy myself without contacting a studio and paying a heap of money.
# 7
