[Mr.Will]

Easy gang,
an exciting time - the first four tracks are off to be mastered as an EP
release.
Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice (and
numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc and the final
sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks in here would share
benefits of their experience.

Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much? Its been talked
of as if its some magic elixer for the tracks - I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Anyways!

Mr.Will

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 8, 8:28*pm, "Mr.Will" wrote:
Easy gang,
an exciting time - the first four tracks are off to be mastered as an EP
release.
Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice (and
numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc and the final
sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks in here would share
benefits of their experience.

Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much? Its been talked
of as if its some magic elixer for the tracks - I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Anyways!

Mr.Will
_______________________

Besides optimizing levels, mastering can:

1. Ensure that all elements(tracks or groups of tracks) of a song have
a "space" in the mix both spectrally and spatially, through the use of
EQ, reverb, echo, and stereo panning.

2. Ensure that all the songs on the album have close *enough* levels -
though this is subjective and the artist may have a reason for one
song or another to be louder or softer than average.

3. Create a texture for your songs or for the album as a whole, a
texture that is "you", and will set your album apart from the many
competitors it will face.

4. Make your song sound good whether played on a college student's
bookshelf speakers above the desk in their dorm, or through the
refrigerator-sized Lansings in some audiophile's basement.

The post-production mastering stage will go much smoother/faster if
your studio sessions observed all the common-sense practices: optimal
mic placement, appropriate levels through the board. Outboard
processing(reverb, echo, other FX) as well as mixer and outboard EQ
are okay, as long as used sparingly. In other words, submit something
to the mastering studio that they can work with!

-ChrisCoaster

[Mark]

Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much? Its been talked
of as if its some magic elixer for the tracks - I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Anyways!

Mr.Will

_______________________

Besides optimizing levels, mastering can:

1. Ensure that all elements(tracks or groups of tracks) of a song have
a "space" in the mix both spectrally and spatially, through the use of
EQ, reverb, echo, and stereo panning.


I think this task has to be done during MIXING not Mastering...

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.Will wrote:

Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much? Its been talked
of as if its some magic elixer for the tracks - I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

It might not change anything. The mastering engineer might just say,
"these sound great, go with them as is."

It might change everything totally, just with a little bit of judicious
cutting and boosing there and there, and make things much better.

It might change the overall levels substantially without making any real
tonal changes at all.

It might also turn your material into distorted garbage in the pursuit
of the greatest possible loudness.

It depends entirely what you say when you sit down with the mastering
engineer. At an attended session, you're going to tell him your philosophy
and what you want it to sound like, and you might give him some examples
of recordings like that. He will then take that into account when he
listens to your tracks.

You want to do an attended session, rather than just sending the tracks
off to someone sight-unseen, and that's in part because you personally want
to listen to the recording on the mastering monitors and hear what the
mastering engineer is doing because it will give you some insight in what
needs to be fixed and so what you can improve the next time around.
A good mastering session should be an educational experience as well as
the last possible opportunity to make sonic changes.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/8/2011 8:28 PM, Mr.Will wrote:

Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice (and
numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc and the final
sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks in here would share
benefits of their experience.

Does mastering change the sound much?

Let's stop using the term "mastering" and come up with
another word. I'll use "changing. 'It depends on what it
sounds like before changing, and what's changed. By putting
your project in the hands of someone who calls himself a
"mastering engineer" you're telling him to change it in ways
that he thinks it needs changing. He may or may not be
influenced by where it's going next.

Radio airplay? Really? Spend your money on a good publicist
first, not a mastering engineer.

I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much?

That's just one thing that a mastering engineer can do to
change your recording. That's not always the goal. And it
may not even be the right thing to try to make it sound the
same on any system. It depends on so many things.

I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Yup. And how will you know if you're really happy? But if
you're happy now, why ask someone to change it before you
get some feedback from your customers? I'm not suggesting
that you shouldn't get it mastered, but that you should
understand what you might want to change and express that to
the person you put in charge of changing it.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mr.Will]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 5/8/2011 8:28 PM, Mr.Will wrote:

Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice (and
numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc and the
final
sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks in here would share
benefits of their experience.

Does mastering change the sound much?

Let's stop using the term "mastering" and come up with another word. I'll
use "changing. 'It depends on what it sounds like before changing, and
what's changed. By putting your project in the hands of someone who calls
himself a "mastering engineer" you're telling him to change it in ways
that he thinks it needs changing. He may or may not be influenced by where
it's going next.


That makes sense - I guess I just have to see where it goes and if I like it
or not!

Radio airplay? Really? Spend your money on a good publicist first, not a
mastering engineer.


Sorry if I gave the impression I thought that would lead to more radio
airplay.
I have several things lined up already, and that was the advice I was given
for when the tracks are played.
Not that I expected mastered tracks to get me more airplay or anything.

I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much?

That's just one thing that a mastering engineer can do to change your
recording. That's not always the goal. And it may not even be the right
thing to try to make it sound the same on any system. It depends on so
many things.

I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Yup. And how will you know if you're really happy? But if you're happy
now, why ask someone to change it before you get some feedback from your
customers? I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't get it mastered, but
that you should understand what you might want to change and express that
to the person you put in charge of changing it.

I get you, I will speak to the mixing engineer again - he seemed convinced
and he has done such a great job so far that Im convinced.
You are right though I havent any idea now about this realm!
Thanks bro

Mr.Will

[Phil W]

"Mr.Will":
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2011 8:28 PM, Mr.Will wrote:

I must admit Im happy with how they sound now,
and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......


"Mastering" is often used to add a "final polish" to the tracks. If this
makes an audible difference or is just level matching throughout and some
other technical necessities (like keeping all peak levels below 0 dBFS, to
avoid digital clipping), depends on the quality of the mixdown-2-track and
the engineer´s decision.

A good mix is a good starting point for "mastering", anyway.

A lot of "mastering" guys offer to "process" 1 track as a "free sample".
These are probably mostly starters, but if they deliver a good job and you
think, that it improves the sound over what you have now, give it a go...

Yup. And how will you know if you're really happy? But if you're
happy now, why ask someone to change it before you get some feedback
from your customers? I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't get it
mastered, but that you should understand what you might want to
change and express that to the person you put in charge of changing
it.

I get you, I will speak to the mixing engineer again - he seemed
convinced and he has done such a great job so far that Im convinced.
You are right though I havent any idea now about this realm!

There´s a good book by Bob Katz "Masterin Audio - The Art and the Science".
More than necessary for you, though.
Anyway, the guy has a website with a free FAQ, that might give some insight
on the subject and some techniques

http://www.digido.com/audiofaq.html

Don´t worry, not everything is important for a start! ;-)
Check out something on EQ, dynamics (see also "loudness") and the following
articles

http://www.digido.com/audio-faq/m/ma...ifference.html
http://www.digido.com/audio-faq/m/ma...echniques.html


Hope that helps,

Phil

[Trevor]

"Phil W" wrote in message
...
"Mastering" is often used to add a "final polish" to the tracks. If this
makes an audible difference or is just level matching throughout and some
other technical necessities (like keeping all peak levels below 0 dBFS, to
avoid digital clipping),

Hah, mastering pop music these days usually means reducing the dynamic range
to less than 10dB with ultra compression, and then pushing the whole mix so
far onto clipping that everything is totally flat topped. Just rip any
Brittney Spears, Lady Ga Ga, Katy Perry etc. CD to the wave editor of your
choice for a good example.

Of course classical music is different, and rarely requires "mastering"
these days now that the inadequacies of vinyl no longer need to be
considered. Anyone can simply normalise the levels before burning to CD,
although a mastering engineer can add all the proper CD codes a recording
engineer may not necessarily be familiar with I guess.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor wrote:
Hah, mastering pop music these days usually means reducing the dynamic range
to less than 10dB with ultra compression, and then pushing the whole mix so
far onto clipping that everything is totally flat topped. Just rip any
Brittney Spears, Lady Ga Ga, Katy Perry etc. CD to the wave editor of your
choice for a good example.

Of course classical music is different, and rarely requires "mastering"
these days now that the inadequacies of vinyl no longer need to be
considered. Anyone can simply normalise the levels before burning to CD,
although a mastering engineer can add all the proper CD codes a recording
engineer may not necessarily be familiar with I guess.

Right. The thing is, the majority of music out there falls into the range
in-between pop music and classical. Your jazz or folk release (or even
hard rock release) can be treated like either extreme or like something in
between. How it gets treated depends on what you ask for.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

Il 11/05/2011 8.52, Trevor ha scritto:
Hah, mastering pop music these days usually means reducing the dynamic range
to less than 10dB with ultra compression, and then pushing the whole mix so
far onto clipping that everything is totally flat topped. Just rip any
Brittney Spears, Lady Ga Ga, Katy Perry etc. CD to the wave editor of your
choice for a good example.

that's bad mastering...

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-09 said:
Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice
(and numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc
and the final sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks
in here would share benefits of their experience.
Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the
average level and the peak level closer together, so that it always
sounds the same on every system, but does it actually change things
that much? Its been talked of as if its some magic elixer for the
tracks - I must admit Im happy with how they sound now, and I guess
I will only know once the tracks are back......

That all depends. What mastering *will do for you is bring
a fresh set of ears to your project who is listening to your
tracks in a known environment with an ear toward how they'll
sound on a variety of systems, and how your target audience
might be listening to them. Maybe the mastering engineer
will use multiband compression and other tools to bring peak
and average levels closer and do other tweaks, but that will
depend on what he thinks they might need.

YEars ago I convinced a friend of mine who was building a
nice studio to at least go somewhere else for mastering his
tracks, another nearby room with a wider variety of
monitors, and that studio's engineer's ears, even if he
couldn't afford to go to the mastering specialists.

tHe first couple times he did that for material destined for
radio he noticed that the harder he hit his tracks with
multiband compression during his mastering sessions the less
they stood out from others on the radio.


I look at the process of mastering like your doctor looks at
caring for your health, as in first do no harm. IF I can't
make it better let it go as is, making small changes and
listening carefully before i even print and commit to them.

I'm sure you'll get other replies in this thread as well.
COngratulations.

Have you listened to the work of the mastering engineer
you're sending your tracks to? sOme who are trying to build
a rep will master one song on approval to let you give a
listen.

OH, and if you can, plan to attend the mastering session.
You'll be able to learn from the mastering engineer, and
answer any questions he has about your intentions and how
they relate to his decisions right there.



GOod luck!



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[swanny]

On 9/05/2011 10:28 AM, Mr.Will wrote:
Easy gang,
an exciting time - the first four tracks are off to be mastered as an EP
release.
Now, Ive sat with the mixing engineer and am going off his advice (and
numerous others) about the need for mastering - radio play etc and the final
sound, and it all makes sense, but wondered if folks in here would share
benefits of their experience.

Does mastering change the sound much? I get that it brings the average level
and the peak level closer together, so that it always sounds the same on
every system, but does it actually change things that much? Its been talked
of as if its some magic elixer for the tracks - I must admit Im happy with
how they sound now, and I guess I will only know once the tracks are
back......

Anyways!

Mr.Will



Traditionally mastering was simply that. To create a 'master' from a mix
for production on whatever the selected media was, usually vinyl or mag
tape. Each had their own set of contraints and requirements and the
mastering engineer had to tailor the mix to match the contraints.

Nowdays people think it means 'magic'.

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 9, 5:28*pm, swanny wrote:


Traditionally mastering was simply that. To create a 'master' from a mix
for production on whatever the selected media was, usually vinyl or mag
tape. Each had their own set of contraints and requirements and the
mastering engineer had to tailor the mix to match the contraints.

Nowdays people think it means 'magic'.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
_______________________
Sometimes I wish those constraints were still around - having to mix
everything below 60Hz(50?) to mono for a LP master. Having to boost
and compress the highs for a Dolby Cassette master.

Digital certainly has liberated us from some of these things, but
simultaneously it has unleashed a vicious loudness competition. It's
not uncommon to see songs - on a digital scale here - with a dynamic
range of -3 -1!! Not much to tap your head or knod your foot to,
but it SURE IS LOUD! ! ! ! lol.

Digital can really sound good, if we just pull back in our trade, and
not allow any peaks over -5, with an average level of -12dB VU. I
noticed that the movement of the meters becomes more natural as I
lower the recording level in Audacity. No longer when the meter surges
up does it seem to "slow down" or hit an invisible ceiling.

Perhaps this will teach people how to actually "listen" to music!
Instead, with the previous example, amps, speaker/headphones, and EARS
are being taxed as never before in the history of recorded sound.
Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.

Once consumers hear a correct recording or see a calibrated image -
their first complaint is either "It's not loud enough" or "It's too
dim".

-CC

[Mark]

Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.



it would not surprise me if they eventually find out that listening to
overcompressed music and watching frenetically edited video hour
after hour contributes to ADHD.

Mark

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 5/9/2011 9:41 PM, Mark wrote:

Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.



it would not surprise me if they eventually find out that listening to
overcompressed music and watching frenetically edited video hour
after hour contributes to ADHD.

Mark

Well studies have shown that Transcendental Meditation
mitigates ADHD, so the converse wouldn't be much of a
stretch.


Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Frank Stearns]

Mark writes:


Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.



it would not surprise me if they eventually find out that listening to
overcompressed music and watching frenetically edited video hour
after hour contributes to ADHD.

I think you're on to something. If it hasn't been done already (and perhaps few are
listening or understand what's going on), it would be interesting to correlate the
rise in use of "make it LOUD" compression in audio everywhere, along with "edits per
second" in visuals everywhere, to the rise of ADHD and similar problems.

There is little visual or acoustical space left where one can let those senses (and
affiliated brain parts) catch a breath. You have to actively seek it out -- turn off
the TV (gasp!) and turn off the ipod or radio (double gasp!)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[swanny]

On 10/05/2011 5:53 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Mark writes:


Squashed dynamic range actually concentrates too much sonic energy
into too narrow a field, and this is actually not biologically or
artistically healthy.



it would not surprise me if they eventually find out that listening to
overcompressed music and watching frenetically edited video hour
after hour contributes to ADHD.

I think you're on to something. If it hasn't been done already (and perhaps few are
listening or understand what's going on), it would be interesting to correlate the
rise in use of "make it LOUD" compression in audio everywhere, along with "edits per
second" in visuals everywhere, to the rise of ADHD and similar problems.

There is little visual or acoustical space left where one can let those senses (and
affiliated brain parts) catch a breath. You have to actively seek it out -- turn off
the TV (gasp!) and turn off the ipod or radio (double gasp!)

Frank
Mobile Audio

Check out Rupert Neve's lecture where he discusses some research being
done in Japan that correlates the lack of HF (ie 20kHz) in digital
recordings (mp3, CD, Video) with agitation and frustration. The same
pieces being listened to from the an analogue tape master with a wide
bandwidth (100kHz) signal chain apparently excited the areas of the
brain to do with relaxation and enjoyment.

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 10, 3:53*am, Frank Stearns
wrote:


There is little visual or acoustical space left where one can let those senses (and
affiliated brain parts) catch a breath. You have to actively seek it out -- turn off
the TV (gasp!) and turn off the ipod or radio (double gasp!)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
*.
_____________________
The best medicine is to put on a period CD release of vintage Steely
Dan(not a post-2000 "Digitally Remastered" one mind you), but one from
back in the 80s. Or a contemporary David Grusin CD.
Those dynamics will cure ya..

-CC

[alex]

Il 10/05/2011 0.50, ChrisCoaster ha scritto:
Sometimes I wish those constraints were still around - having to mix
everything below 60Hz(50?) to mono for a LP master

monoing the low end helps in cd too. home theatre and some hifi system
usually have a single subwoofer. side components in that range will lead
to a degree of phase cancellation. Bass frequency usually have a big
amplitude, and a phase cancellation will lead to a lower overall volume.

alex