Off Topic Mastering.

[knguro]

I've been always curious about what does this process consist in. I had the idea that is about Q’ing frequencies, reducing noises, hum, etc. But I was told also that special equipment is needed. Does someone has experience with that here? Is there a decent affordable way to do it inhome?

 

[andynpeters]

My Boss MultiTracker comes with a "Mastering Tool Kit" installed.....no idea what it does really, but the end results seem pretty good to me.....though I could use a talent transplant!

 

[fbecir]

There are several software that can do a mastering, for instance AAMS (AAMS).
If you use some multi-track recorders like the BOSS (even the MICRO-BR) you have a mastering kit.

 

[metalmarty]

I've got some pretty cool ebook-like writings and essays on the subject, written by pros, PM me if anyone's interested. Mastering is something completely different then mixing and has quite a steep learning curve. I can mix alright but mastering is not my forte and possibly never will.

Some good tips: http://www.tweakheadz.com/mastering_your_audio.htm
Some pretty accurate Wiki-stuff:

Process
The source material, ideally at the original resolution, is processed using equalization, compression, limiting, noise reduction and other processes. More tasks, such as editing, pre-gapping, leveling, fading in and out, noise reduction and other signal restoration and enhancement processes can be applied as part of the mastering stage. This step prepares the music for either digital or analog, eg. vinyl, replication. The source material is put in the proper order, commonly referred to as assembly or (track) sequencing.

If the material is destined for vinyl release, additional processing, such as dynamic range reduction, frequency dependent stereo–to–mono fold-down and equalization, may be applied to compensate for the limitations of that medium. Finally, for compact disc release, Start of Track, End of Track, and Indexes are defined for disc navigation. Subsequently, it is rendered to either a physical medium, such as a CD-R, DVD-R or a DDP file set, the standard method of secure delivery for CD and DVD replication masters. The specific medium varies, depending on the intended release format of the final product. For digital audio releases, there is more than one possible master media, chosen based on replication factory requirements or record label security concerns. Regardless of what delivery method is chosen, the replicator will transfer the audio to a glass master that will generate metal stampers for replication.

The process of audio mastering varies depending on the specific needs of the audio to be processed. Mastering engineers need to examine the types of input media, the expectations of the source producer or recipient, the limitations of the end medium and process the subject accordingly. General rules of thumb can rarely be applied.

Steps of the process typically include but are not limited to the following:

1. Transferring the recorded audio tracks into the Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) (optional).
2. Sequence the separate songs or tracks (the spaces in between) as they will appear on the final release.
3. Process or "sweeten" audio to maximize the sound quality for its particular medium (eg. applying specific EQ for vinyl)
4. Transfer the audio to the final master format (i.e., CD-ROM, half-inch reel tape, PCM 1630 U-matic tape, etc.).

Examples of possible actions taken during mastering:

1. Editing minor flaws
2. Applying noise reduction to eliminate clicks, dropouts, hum and hiss
3. Adjusting stereo width
4. Adding ambience
5. Equalize audio across tracks
6. Adjust volume
7. Dynamic range expansion or compression
8. Peak limit

 

[knguro]

Wow is a lot more than what I thought, what about equipment? (besides the Boss MultiTracker). For example for mixing purposes there are plenty options for it, is the same for mastering or is it just pure software?

 

[metalmarty]

Mastering hardware needs to be of the highest quality you can afford and it's usually different stuff then the recording/mixing gear. Expensive too . EQ's and compression are often not the same as the gear earlier in the process.

Some words on this from Stephen Baldassarre:
"The equipment used by mastering engineers is very specialized and precise. Most people have dynamic compressors in their studios but the compressors used in mastering are a bit more complicated. For instance, I use compression that can control high and low frequencies independently. It can catch peaks in the audio signal instantly or before the peaks even occur. This compression uses joint stereo operation which means that if a peak occurs on one channel of the stereo mix, both channels (right and left audio channels) with be attenuated equally. This is important because if only one channel is attenuated, there will be a sudden loss in one channel's volume which will interfere with the soundscape. Joint stereo operation also prevents stereo separation from deteriorating as compression is increased.

Most people are also very familiar with equalizers or EQ. The EQ used in mastering can affect both right and left channels independently or identically. This is useful if the right and left channels have significantly different frequency content or if there is an error in one channel and not the other (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Also, I can use EQ from a ten-band analogue EQ all the way to 2,400 band digital FFT filters. FFT means Fast Fourier Transform, which is a method of using a graphic display to control independent bands of frequencies. Why so many bands? Precision, that's why. I've mastered songs with high pitched ringing going on throughout caused by substandard equipment or from having a computer too close to the recording gear. Normal EQ could eliminate such sounds but would cause severe interference with the rest of the program material making it sound unnatural. The digital EQ is so precise that it can eliminate the ringing without any audible effect on the program material. It can also be used for split seconds to reduce bum notes or add a little accent to certain instruments without affecting the surrounding material. This is very useful for increasing clarity and overall impact of the sound."

You CAN do this stuff at home, there are numerous plugins available for use in the digital realm of your PC and they can sound every bit acceptable. I've heared good things about the SPL Vitalizer for instance.

I can mail you a pretty nice guide on CD mastering on your pc if you get me your @

 

[threeminutesboy]

that's a pretty informative thread thanks for sharing this !

 

[Colin]

mastering is so important in the recording process. Having a professional with dedicated mastering equipment (yes those eq's do cost around $10,000) and environment is like having a car going in for a paint job. Let me explain, the painter has all the proper gear like a booth and baking oven plus years of experience. While you could paint the car yourself the results would be different. Having said that if the body work (mixing and recording) was not up to scratch then it's not going to matter how good the paint job is.

Also the mastering engineer balances the entire project, meaning all the songs will be within the same dynamic range (volume). Imagine having not one car but 10 cars needing paint? The job gets that little bit harder. Even the top audio mixers/producers send their mixes to a mastering house for that final polish.
Years ago audio was always striving for the highest quality possible, nowadays it's made for ipods etc. Maybe it will be all done by the same person in the future. Maybe we'll send the mix off to be professionally mixed and then we'll master it ourselves?

 

[mojomkr]

I'm probably wasting air, but here it goes. Flame if you must.

Mastering/Mixing..Probably 1/2 of 1% of the population could tell the

difference. I just wish my wife would put the CD back in the proper jewel

case !

 

[Colin]

I'm probably wasting air, but here it goes. Flame if you must.

Mastering/Mixing..Probably 1/2 of 1% of the population could tell the

difference. I just wish my wife would put the CD back in the proper jewel

case !

maybe but the artist would be able to tell the difference

 

[mojomkr]

maybe but the artist would be able to tell the difference

I agree. The art of it then would be for the artist to recreate live what was

Mastered in the studio. It's kind of like going to a show and seeing a Fake

backline. Whats real? and Whats Fake? I would be more impressed hearing

a club band with context that was honest. Over producing and over dubbing,

It does happen to good bands though !

 

[DrGonzo5150]

As someone who recently went from a rough mix, which I thought didn't sound too bad, to a full mix with a lovely old SSL 4000E... All i can say is they sound WORLDS apart!!!

Honestly. It elevated the tunes from what now in hindsight sounded like garage band demo stuff, to a place where i would put it up against anything... I honestly regret showing anyone the initial mix haha - Especially you Colin!

I'm from a school of thought that if the album is mixed well, when it's mastered it should just come back the same but louder haha. But when I say louder it's really because it'll have louder louds, cleaner cleans, quiter quites etc... A more round sound.

We got ours mastered by Leon Zervos who used to be a senior mastering engineer at Sterling Sound NY (Mstrd: Aerosmith, Skidrow, Black Crowes). I would say it came back sounding more even and balanced, certain things pop more, certain things pop less... I'm not sure if refined is the right word. For me at least, i find mastering a strange process, it inserts an extra something but can be hard to put your finger on. Colin is spot on when he references it as a final polish, as it really rounds things off nicely if you have a good mix.

We certainly strived to have it sounding as good as we could and even went as far as putting it to tape to get extra analogy goodness haha... But alas, so much is mixed and mastered for Ipod, i'm not sure how many people actually own good systems and really listen to music anymore. (Mojo - If you are listening on a computer/ipodyou maybe right, some people wouldn't notice because the reality is its squished/compressed/frequency removed etc to make it fit on there and then coming through tiny tinny speakers. If you have a listen on a good system with a good amp and speakers, you can't not notice)

 

[straycat113]

With all the home recording programs out there their is nothing that cannot be done in ones house. I also am on the side of that their is just too much technology involved in music today, especially when you see duets or a player make a guest appearance on an album, and then read that the players were not in the same country let alone studio and just sent a track across the pond like Santana did with Clapton on the Supernatural album with the Calling, which won a Grammy no less for best instrumental.

Today with Pro Tools you can just take all the clams or out of key vocals and correct them on the spot and a lot of music has that sterile vibe or the production is to slick and perfect for my taste. I understand what mojo is saying and he does have a point, but if you listened to an album for years and then it is released remastered you can tell the difference, but then again as mojo stated how much of the general public would even pick up on it.

Personally I do not think anything compares to older analog recordings of the past as I love that greasy rock sound of days gone by that can never be duplicated unless you have the whole band in a studio laying it down with clams and all recorded. Now I will go put on some Exile on Main Street and listen to Rocks Off as it does not get any greasier than this.

 

[mojomkr]

If you are listening on a computer/ipodyou maybe right, some people wouldn't notice because the reality is its squished/compressed/frequency removed etc to make it fit on there and then coming through tiny tinny speakers. If you have a listen on a good system with a good amp and speakers, you can't not notice)

That's a perfect Analogy ! Maybe then it could be classified as a Genre of

Music. Mastered & Unmastered.

 

[DrGonzo5150]

I agree. The art of it then would be for the artist to recreate live what was

Mastered in the studio. It's kind of like going to a show and seeing a Fake

backline. Whats real? and Whats Fake? I would be more impressed hearing

a club band with context that was honest. Over producing and over dubbing,

It does happen to good bands though !

WhoooOOole other can of worms
Mixing and mastering have nothing at all to do with overdubs, pitch correction/auto tune or studio trickery.

Even if you just put down very basic drums, 1xbass, 1xguitar, 1x lead vocals and 2x harmonies there is still a lot going on. When you consider what is miced on the drum kit alone: snare top, bottom, ambient... and then imagine that for every tom/hat/cymbal etc.

It's the mixing that ensure the sound of the kit is even and level. No one wants to hear just snare and cymbals. And from there, get the volume of each intrument and the overall feeling of space in the mix.

I agree that there are bands out there that are not talented and have no live chops what so ever *coff**falloutboy* *cough* but i consider that is an entirely different kettle of fish and not really related to mixing or mastering.

As an example, Frampton Comes Alive is an amazing albums. Besides the band's chops (it is a live album after all), alot of that has to do with the micing/mixing/mastering.

Thin Lizzy's Live and Dangerous is also a great album... But for various reasons a large chunks of vocals, guitars and bass were re-recording and overdubbed.

Anyway, i'm just trying to demonstrate that the quality of the mix and master has nothing to do with the overall production or in falloutboy's case, the integrity of the band

 

[Colin]

I agree. The art of it then would be for the artist to recreate live what was

Mastered in the studio. It's kind of like going to a show and seeing a Fake

backline. Whats real? and Whats Fake? I would be more impressed hearing

a club band with context that was honest. Over producing and over dubbing,

It does happen to good bands though !

I don"t really understand what you're saying here. Take the Beatles as an example, they never performed Sargent Peppers live, they probably couldn't have recreated it live either. Yet the album is a recording/engineering milestone. So would that be real or fake?

 

[DrGonzo5150]

I don"t really understand what you're saying here. Take the Beatles as an example, they never performed Sargent Peppers live, they probably couldn't have recreated it live either. Yet the album is a recording/engineering milestone. So would that be real or fake?

+1

Queen's A Night at the Opera is another... "No Synthesizers" but a masterpiece!
Bohemian Rhapsody alone has like 180 vocal overdubs and to the best of my knowledge, the opera section was never performed live.

But two examples of albums which pushed the limits and have left a significant legacy.

 

[mojomkr]

I don"t really understand what you're saying here. Take the Beatles as an example, they never performed Sargent Peppers live, they probably couldn't have recreated it live either. Yet the album is a recording/engineering milestone. So would that be real or fake?

I'm sure at the time if you ever went to a Beatles concert, You wouldn't have

heard the music anyway because of all the screaming girls. I'm so sorry I

hijacked this thread. I was drawn in! Mastering is considered as an art.

Most previously released music is noted as remastered when released. It's

just my cup of sugar to see someone in front, live sweatin it out and "come

what may" kind of thing. I don't want to mention any band names or bash

anyone. It would for sure be fun though to have software and to make a

piece of music that sounded good and then made to sound great ! To have

that power and get your name on the CD cover, Get called up to get a

Grammy. Make lots of money. I get the picture.

 

[Colin]

actually if you do master yourself a great piece of software is izotope ozone. I love it and highly recommend it

 

[straycat113]

Up until a few years ago the one KISS album that I could still enjoy and brought back a lot of memories was Alive. So I was really bummed out to find that half of it was all overdubbed in the studio.

As far as the Beatles they stopped performing live as they could not hear a thing on stage, just a short time shy of the changes in technology that made it possible to be heard in stadiums or arena's. I doubt at the time they could of pulled off Sgt Peppers live do to the technology of the day but maybe the most amazing thing about that whole album is it was recorded on 4 track machines which is just mind boggling when you consider the songs on it, and that Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane were taken off of it so they could be put out as a single. Also the Beatles were all ace musicians and the little concert on the rooftop was a sample of what the world was robbed of, as I am sure they would of played again together if not for Johns murder.

For anyone who has the Concert For George DVD which has one of the greatest group of musicians ever assembled, and is one of if not the most powerful performance by a band I have ever heard. It also showed that the Beatles would of been able to pull off just about any number live with what can be done today.

Also being a Queen fanatic I have stated on here before that the first concert I ever saw was Queen with Thin Lizzy as the opening act at the Garden in 76. Well the whole time I was wondering how they were going to pull off the opera part of Bohemian Rhapsody,well right after Brians little solo and the lights went off and you could hear that section was recorded, to be honest I did not feel one bit like they were trying to pull a fast one as it would be impossible for the four of them to pull that off. But I would defy anyone to say that Queen were not one of the greatest live bands ever, and till this day they are still talked about as the band that stole the show at Live Aid.=No Synthesizers Indeed!