Mastering

Jyoti

Sooo... how many of you master your own music? Or what?

Cool

mosc · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject:

I do my own mastering. I'm not trying to have CDs that sound like so-and-so pop band though.

Some people swear by paying someone to do it for you, but I never got the argument for that.

BTW, I've found that a thing that is often overlooked is getting the balance just right. It makes a huge difference.

Jyoti · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject:

Yep, yep - I started doing my own mastering after a couple of bad experiences where labels sent me proof copies that were, frankly, not very good. I realised I could do a better job myself and so I have been, for the last eight years.

I've recently disengaged from the Loudness Wars. Although I have L1, L2 etc, I don't really use them any more. I did have a phase of wanting my stuff to sound as pumped as pop radio but gave up as I realised it was making for ultimately fatiguing listening. The only time I do use these tools now is maybe if my track is going on a comp where I don't want it to sound much quieter than the surrounding tracks.

I figure that if someone doesn't know how to use a volume control, they're probably not a fan of my music anyway... Laughing

mosc · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject:

Yes, this is a big frustrating thing. I mean, you master for the target performance and you sacrifice quality.

If you master in your studio, it may sound really bad in your car. If you master to make it sound good in your car, it may not sound great in your studio. What about ear buds used by mp3 player listeners - that's an different bag all together.

Lately, I've been spending a lot of time with ambiophonics (not ambisonics - that's completely different). In my experiments, this makes a fantastic mixing and mastering system because it goes a long way towards getting beyond the sound of the speakers. Stuff I mix while listening ambiophonically sounds very good with headphones and earbuds too.

Jyoti · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject:

It is a quandary, innit? Will most people listen to the music on their iPods or home stereos? If they are listening at home, is it on full-range speakers or satellite and sub home cinema systems?

When I'm listening to "properly" mastered, major-label tracks in my car, I'm amazed how much they vary. I don't just mean bassy hip hop to middley indie-rock, the compression, the overall spectral balance, everything.

This is one of the things that's stopped me worrying so much about my own mastering. In context, my stuff doesn't leap out as "un-mastered" so I figure I must be doing okay. Very Happy

ian-s · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject:

Jyoti · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject:

Cheers, g2ian! Always good to have feedback! Very Happy

Of course, I'm worrying about all this high-faluting, hi-fi stuff when the track that actually did the best commercially was recorded on a Tascam 688 (tape cassette 8-track).

I remind myself of that when the gearlust becomes too all-consuming! Razz

Uncle Krunkus · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject:

I use T-racks to master my stuff.
It's an analogue modeling stand alone mastering rack kind-a-thing. Very nice. Heaps of control. But you've really got to be careful about over doing it I reckon.
Generally, I figure that if I've been working on a track for a while, possibly adding my own EQ to certain parts, and thinking about the mix, etc. It doesn't really need very much. Maybe roll off some rumble, make sure it's still got a nice bright top end where appropriate, soft compression to keep the quieter bits from disappearing etc. That's all. And I always check the bypassed version again, cos it's not hard to end up with something which just simply doesn't sound as rich and punchy as the original. Beware of compression. It might need heaps to get it to sound "good" in a car for example, but I'm not mastering it in a car, so I don't go out of my way to make it so.
When something is "done" then sure, I'll see what it sounds like on a little portable, through headphones, in the car, etc. But ultimately, I'm mastering for it to sound good on an above average yet mediocre hi-fi, like mine.
And remember that mastering is a very personal and subjective process. Professionals often do little tricks to give a track their own personal sound, which they add to lots of things, whether it really helps the track or not. It's definitely a large link in the "art" chain. Which is why I like the fact that artists can master their own stuff now. They aren't being pushed around by someone else's personal agenda.

mosc · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject:

I think I understand why a record label might want to master all of their artists if they are interested in a very consistent sound. That's a bit of a special case for most experimental music types though.

It might be fun to do an experiment. We take a short track and post a wav file on the site. Then people who volunteer take shots at mastering it. We might all learn something from that. I would give people the opportunity to choose that no mastering is needed too, just to cover all the bases.

I wouldn't suggest voting, because that is a competition, but an open-minded discussion of the results would be valuable.

Kassen · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject:

Jyoti · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject:

Jyoti · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject:

True, but still, if you have a choice; I wouldn't.

Jyoti · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject:

At this stage of the poll, five people have voted, four do their own and one pays another engineer.

I find this quite intriguing - I thought there would be far more people sending it away for mastering. I guess there's also the question of budget which, sadly, I haven't factored into my poll. Confused

(As in, 'would you pay to get it mastered if you could afford it?')

Uncle Krunkus · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject:

No, I wouldn't.
I must admit that this is one point on which Kassen and I are at opposite ends of the pitch. I don't see any need to let someone else master something of mine, just as I wouldn't normally want someone else to record it, play it, engineer it, or write it. The idea that you're unable to master your own material sounds like there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. I don't think there is. Then again, I don't think there is a right or wrong way to do most things. My only rule is "there are no rules" especially with any kind of artistic endeavour.

Jyoti · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject:

Hmmm.. I suspect my position is somewhere between the two of you, then! Very Happy

I think you could try and have an objective, optimum master and that *maybe* a second set of very experienced ears could better achieve that.

On the other hand... as I said before, only I truly know what I want my records to sound like. And I'm hearing a lot of stuff on CD that sounds quite appalling, all from pro masterers. (Yes, I have friends who do mastering so I do realise they are often forced to deliver masters this squished to placate A&Rs.)

So, adding that to the horrible experiences I've had in the past with external mastering, it's DIY for me! Razz

Jyoti · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:23 am Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:56 am Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:26 am Post subject:

Kassen, is it possible to summarize what the challenges are for mastering for a big PA and vinyl? I know of some, but you are probably more in the know about these things.

I'm aware of bass management. It is best to make the bass mono and equally distributed over L and R. Of course that isn't so great for people listening on a top end system with dual subs, but like we said, this is for big PAs and vinyl.

Any other things to think about.

Kassen · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject:

Sure. The bass thing you hint at is subtly different between PA and vinyl. For records the bass needs to be mono because of the way sound is encoded in the groove and the desire to avoid skipping needles. You can make a stereo bass if you like but the more out of phase the left & right channels are the less volume you'll get. Because of the inherent noise-floor in vinyl I'd say getting a good volume is quite desirable.

With PA's it's different, you can find systems that are perfectly capable of completely stereo bass but because of the challenges of sound in larger venues where phase can be a big issue many PA's are mono so while your mix can have a stereo bass you should make sure it sums to mono well if you'd like to be compatible with such places. So; that's a similar (or at least non-conflicting) concern but quite different in nature and cause. While on the subject of bass; very low frequencies take a lot of energy to produce for diminishing returns, for that reason most PA'S in large clubs will roll off the bass, they do so at a higher frequency then you'd do for vinyl. For vinyl it's wise (and indeed necessary) to roll off the bass because very low sounds will be filtered out anyway at the pre-amp stage where the RIAA conversion takes place which also attempts to remove turntable-rumble. This can of course be compensated for using various pychoacoustical tricks

Dynamics are another issue, particularly with vinyl where your average volume is limited by the width of the groove. If you have a spike at one point and another that lines up with it in the next groove you have a problem. This means that squashing the wave completely (loudness-war style) will dicate you eventual max volume while you could also have a more dynamic mix with the same average volume that'll sound much nicer. This is entirely unlike CD.

Etc, etc, etc. What this means is that if you want your work to come across in a certain way after being "filtered" through such processes it really helps to take the nature of those processes and the limitations and strengths of the material into account. Sometimes this reminds me of photographers who understand the photographic and printing process and who will photograph entirely inedible things in order to eventually end up with a mouth-watering image of a dish.

There are many more aspects to this, for example the desire to turn a (compilation) album into a coherent and pleasant listening experience or the hope that a certain piece will sound as it's meant to sound on a large range of systems.

These concerns are different from post-processing on a whole mix in order to make the mix sound pleasing to the composer/producer. With all due respect to Uncle; this can be done "wrong" (unlike post-processing on a mix for aesthetic effect). For very small releases or in preparation for a performance on a known system those two processes may blur into one but I'd argue that the less copying (or pressing) is involved the less sense it makes to speak of a "master".

There's a LOT more that could be said about all of this but it gets very technical very quickly as many of the concerns in mastering come from properties of various systems (recording media, playback devices....) and so it'd get very lengthy very quickly. That's also why there are professional mastering engineers that specialise in this field. Despite what the average CD coming out these days might lead one to believe; some of those people are quite good at what they are doing.

mosc · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject:

Thanks, Kassen.

I've heard many people talk about rolling off the bass on PA systems. Do you know at what frequency the roll off should start and what is the slope?

When playing live, I like to drive a PA at extremely low frequencies to set up loud standing waves at whatever the room frequency turns out to be. This has nothing to do with mastering of course. Anyway, I love to get the room rumbling and all the glassware shaking and all that. It's a lot of fun. I have certain patches that are good for that. The PA has to have subwoofers or really nice natural bass capabilities.

I've never had a sound man get upset with me, but once someone behind the bar was really pissed. Laughing

Kassen · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject:

Uncle Krunkus · Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:48 am Post subject:

I see your point Kassen, and must admit that I know virtually nothing of the process of "mastering" as far as it refers to getting something ready for vinyl.
And yet I would also wonder whether the possibilty of something being pressed to vinyl is relevant, to me, to anyone else who is producing music at home, or anyone at all these days. (does anyone still press vinyl?)
I'm sure that when my chances of being pressed to vinyl move out of the "snowkflakes hope in hell" league, I'll have a major deal with an enormous record company, thousands of dollars to afford mastering, and what the track ends up sounding like won't be any of my business anymore anyway. Laughing

In a similar way, I can't imagine anything I do ever being listened to on a large PA. If it were, the biggest technical issue would be making it sound good with nobody in the venue! Laughing

Me, pre-recorded, and played to more than 2 people at the same time? Shocked

I doubt it.
Although what you said about rolling off the bass makes a lot of sense.
I think they need to come up with a new term for "mastering" which doesn't take into account these special cases. Or should "home recordings" simply stop at the mix stage and leave it at that. Is there actually any point in the "fix the EQ and take the tops off" kind of mastering?
I really do appreciate your knowledge on these matters, and I didn't mean to trivialise the process, I'm just not sure how much of it is applicable to the kind of thing I do. Smile

Kassen · Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject:

Uncle Krunkus · Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:05 am Post subject:

If and when I ever get around to my next set of "post-processing" tracks, I'll definitely give that a go. Thanks Kassen. Cool

I've started posting my mixes here, and asking what people think by e-mailing them a link to the post. It's hard to get honest, unbiased, criticism though, especially from friends who actually produce music.
I'm very isolated really, and there just aren't many people near by, that I know, who have a decent setup, or an opinion. Laughing

It would be difficult though to do that kind of auditioning over the net, as I assume shifting to an MP3 is not going to enhance the process very much. It may give an overall impression of the mix though, and help with compositional and structural opinions.
What do you think?