Prep mix for mastering?

[Jim_Boulter]

I was just reading the latest Recording Mag last night, and was curious about a comment in one of the mastering articles. (Sorry, I don't have it on me at the moment to quote directly.)

It said that when he got back the mastered tracks, he was happy (once adjusting to the "louder" factor), but the snare and bass had lost some of their attack. With the crack of the snare, and, in some genres, the slap and pop of the bass being such a critical part of the sound of those instruments, I would think this would be a bit more disturbing than he said. Is this normal? Did he get a bad master job? (Again, sorry; I haven't listened to the sample tracks he posted.)

Then, on to my question in the subject - If this is something to be expected, is there a way to prepare for it in the mix before sending it in for mastering? A little more highs EQed in on those parts, so the compression doesn't totally kill them? Ask for a remaster with a slower attack so those parts punch on through first? Find someone else to master altogether? (Obviously not an option for those of us on a tight [non-existant] budget, but...)

I have no clue here. No, I don't have anything ready to have mastered, but seems a worthy discussion. Thanks for your input.

Jim

[Mark Alan Miller]

From experience with just such a loss of musically vital dynamics, all I can say is make sure you have them beautifully there to begin with, and be as adamant as possible that they not be destroyed in mastering.

And the major culprit for destroying said transients is overlimiting (and to some degree compressing) during mastering, in the quest for 'loudness' - that is, sheer average level - on a CD. A major reason to not try to play the 'voiume war' game.

I've had clients in the past who demanded their CDs be really really loud from mastering. (And I can mix loud to begin with, so it shouldn't be too difficult to make stuff loud, right? Right.) Well, they pushed and pushed for more and more 'volume' on the CD (way beyond what I would ever encourage.) Loved it. Were proud of it. Got the CDs back from the plant and hated it. The time between approving the master and getting the CDs back was spent not listening to the CD (they wanted the pleasure of it being 'fresh' again) and boy, the perspecive shocked them! They noted especially how little punch everything had. How 'flat' it sounded. And tiring to listen to all the way through. The next time they went to mastering (and this is more than one client that has learned this lesson the hard way) they were adamant about keeping transient information intact, even if it meant a CD master that was a couple db quieter than some of the really loud ones out there.

So, if you're going for 'loud' in mastering, mix loud to begin with. Compress stuff. Compress busses/subgroups with that stuff running through it. Try and get average levels up before compression and limiting on the stereo mix/buss is deployed to make it louder. If you can get your average levels up in mix, even a few db, and keep your lovely transients intact, you'll be that much happier with what mastering can do (or not do) to your mixes.

I don't think I would suggest making things brighter in an attempt to alleviate the destruction of transients and attack information due to overlimiting. You'll just end up with bright, overlimited, harsh sounds with bad transient damage. Probably the opposite direction of what you're intending.

[Blade]

I can tell you what I do now.

After making records for 20 years, i mix and master at the same time.

I'm tired of mastering engineers ruining my hard work.

Another alternative for you is to take your sessions to the mastering facility instead of the two track master. That way if something needs to come up or down, then you can do it right there.

It may cost more for the time, but in the future, when you listen to the music, you will be glad you paid it.

ps...the people who started mastering at a louder level should be punished!

[Reverend Carter]

HELLO All! this is my first post, but i've been visiting for a few months.
i work at ardent studios in memphis , and i graduated from recording school last august.

now, back to the topic at hand

i've been pestering engineers on what levels they mix to and i get different responses.
i asked our mastering engineer and he prefers 5-6 dB headroom. i just finished my first project and have my first mastering appointment next week. i decided to go with the mastering guy and kept my mixes at 5 dB headroom.

BUT my clent's manager says the levels should be ALMOST peaking to keep the mastering guys from squashing the life out of it. now that i've heard this, i'm going to keep the sessions close at hand just in case!


i'll let you guys know how it goes!

Rev. Carter

[Mark Alan Miller]

IMO (humble or no-so ) a good mastering engineer should be able to deal with mixes coming in at any resonable level and still do the same quality work. I see no reason whatsoever that a mix closer to peaking should stop a qualified ME from doing anything differently, for better or worse. Sure, there's some math that has to be done if mixes come in hot enough that there isn't enough room to do additional processing - but I argue that the destruction of such math will be inaudible, particularly in light of the processing done that nessesetates such math. (I know, I know, every little bit matters and all that... but really.)
The notion that mixes sent to mastering hotter will somehow prevent someone from squashing the life out of them is relative - who's to say it might not make them squash it more, 'cause it's louder than they're used to getting or whatever?

Please - make your mixes as good as you possibly can - and being overly fussy about how loud digitally they are isn't really worth worrying about too much. Just make them reasonable and don't try to get close to peaking, but don't worry about if you do. (The time spent worring about exactly how loud one is printing their final 24 bit digital mix is generally spent better elsewhere I believe. Gernerally speaking.) ...and then find a ME who does work you really like, then communiate your wishes, desires, and concerns to them. Attend the session if need be. Ask for revisions if need be. And if they have a roughly preferred level to get mixes at, well, sure, aim for that if it makes you and them happy. But don't fuss over it.

I'm sorry, but anyone who routinely gets disappointed by the work their MEs are doing should walk the other way from them and find a new ME.

[Reverend Carter]

points taken

i had to register for this board when this topic came up, its the one thing i could never get a good grasp on. another engineer who works here told me that some fader moves were rendered unnoticable after his mix was mastered. o

i feel good about how my mixes sound and my client (the artist, not the manager) loves them. seeing as i have never had a mix mastered, there is a bit of worry on my part that i've been going about it all wrong (i am not really an experienced engineer, just really really pro-tools savvy).

well, only one way to find out!!!


Rev. Carter

[Jim_Boulter]

Thanks, MAM. I hadn't thought of over-limiting, but that makes sense. What simpler way to bring the overall level up and destroy those pretty attacks?!

I certainly had thought of communicating first, especially stating that I don't just want it loud, especially at the expense of transients and dynamics. I think I'd be just as disappointed in fader moves being compressed away as transients lost.

[Mark Alan Miller]

Rev. Carter, well, mastering, and the sonic abuse that can and does go on, as well as myths surrounding the nessesity of sheer level on a CD to keep it 'competitive' are hot-button issues for me, as I too have had some less-than-stellar work done to recordings I mixed happen early on. I later freelanced as a mastering engineer for 3 years and mastered many records. After a little while of doing that, I got paranoid that my work wasn't up to snuff, even considering the lower rates the clients were paying, so I started asking MEs that I know and trust to listen to my work. They all thought it was just fine - quite good in fact, they said, considering the simple tools and makeshift rooms I had been working with.
So, my heavy-handed opinion is (and Jim_Boulter, this is for you, too) that you should be able to get a great sounding master. Moreso if your mixes are great too, but in general. If you don't get what you like, speak up. Tell the ME what seems to be wrong. Have them fix it.
I highly suggest bringing this contingency up with them before the session. Ask them "what if I don't like how it sounds when it's done? What then? Do revisions cost? How much?" Basic revisons should be free, IMO (thinks like tweaking a fadeout or two, or adjusting the space between a couple of songs) to inexpensive (things like bringing the level up or down a touch on a song or two, or perhaps an eq touchup on something) to regular priced time (things like a near-complete overhaul.) Why do I say that the latter is the case? Because, if you liked other work by said ME, and had good communication prior to work being done, there is reasonable expectation that they would get you at least very close to what you desire the first time out, and if they don't it isn't nessesarily their (or anyone's fault) - and thusly it's really only fair if major work needs to be done that it's done with fair compensation.

And Jim, the kinds of compression used in mastering shouldn't destroy relative levels, or at least not change them much (perceptibly) if you're not compressing to add tons of average level to the record. Sure, a mix will change slightly with compression and eq, especially the perceived balance of stuff, but in general, if it's done well it shouldn't undo fader moves. At least non-subtle ones. Subtle ones, I'd argue, might not be audible anyway for anyone aside for those who were there to do them!

Remember that compression on a stereo mix reacts in some way or another to the amplitude of the entire mix's waveform, perhaps with a bias toward a frequency range or something, but it's all about amplitude. So if something in the mix specifically adds amplitude momentarily more than others, it could affect how the compressor reacts at that moment. For example, a stray loud bass note suddenly bringing up the amplitude of the mix will likely make a compressor react, with the perceived result being the rest of the mix ducking down! Multi-band compression, or compressors that are frequency-dependent of course will change how all that behaves...

And, to perhaps give you confidence that you too can have good mastering, I have been happy with several people consistently now for a few years... took time to find them, and it's certainly not gonna be cheap to get it done right, but boy is it worth it. One guy in particular gets the lion's share of work from my place, and my clients are thrilled with his results.
And when my clients cannot afford the more expensive guys, there is a local guy who's work is quite good for many styles, and I still too do 'on the cheap' mastering for people too. (I don't do it in the same control room as my main studio, so there's no conflict of mastering on the same system that stuff was mixed on, either - a huge no-no in my book!)
Generally, I really push for clients to go to the better (and again, yes, more expensive) as they really are worth it. Properly built rooms for the task, equipment (not just software!) colllected for the task, and an ME who does it full time - not just as one of many different hats - all add up to consistency and reliability.

So, what to do if you don't know an ME you trust yet? Get some recommendations from people, look on favorite records to see who mastered them, and shop around. And if you want, many, many MEs will do one song for you as an audition - get several to do the same song and pick the ME who did the recording the most justice.

Just some more thoughts.

[parlormusic]

Two most important things to do when having a project mastered:
1) Get the mix as good sounding as possible with no mix processing (EQ, compression, limiting).
2) Communicate with the mastering engineer. You need to convey what you're after in a final mix. If loudness is not THE most important goal, TELL THEM. If you want them to tighten up the lows and add sheen, TELL THEM. Many mastering engineers will use an album that you want them to model after and shoot for that sound as best as they can. Communication will save you time and money.

[Mark Alan Miller]

Two most important things to do when having a project mastered:
1) Get the mix as good sounding as possible with no mix processing (EQ, compression, limiting).
2) Communicate with the mastering engineer. You need to convey what you're after in a final mix. If loudness is not THE most important goal, TELL THEM. If you want them to tighten up the lows and add sheen, TELL THEM. Many mastering engineers will use an album that you want them to model after and shoot for that sound as best as they can. Communication will save you time and money.

Nice summation!
I'd change "no mix processing" to "no post-mix processing" though, as many will use a compressor on the L/R buss. However, along those lines, I would discourage the use of any L/R processing if it were in an attempt to 'pre-master' as one mixes.
I am not one of those people who believes it's truely possible to 'master' as one mixes, as I think that still qualifies as mixing. Mastering, or more precisely, pre-mastering, can only truely happen when all of the mixes are complete and can be looked at as a whole work. Mastering one song before knowing exactly what others on the same album are going to sound like next to them is 'cart before the horse' territory, and is a little like shooting in the dark.
Just my opinion...

[sammyp]

I can tell you what I do now.

After making records for 20 years, i mix and master at the same time.

I'm tired of mastering engineers ruining my hard work.

Another alternative for you is to take your sessions to the mastering facility instead of the two track master. That way if something needs to come up or down, then you can do it right there.

It may cost more for the time, but in the future, when you listen to the music, you will be glad you paid it.

ps...the people who started mastering at a louder level should be punished!

I haven't been recording for 20 years but i agree with you re; mastering as you go. It's quite convenient thanks to the modern DAW. Once you begin to apply your mastering tools say to the master buss, you can easily compensate for deficiencies in the mix that a multiband comp etc can expose. You can make small adjustments in the mastering and the mixing and burn test CDs to your hearts content to be checked in various listening environments.

When i'm fine tuning a file, i may make a .3-.5 db change in the multiband (master stage) and/or pull back a reverb buss .5 db(mix stage) - then burn a CD and do some listening in the boom box, car etc.

[Mark Alan Miller]

I may not win fans for statements like some of these here on the TOMB, but I belive they're true:


So, if you're mastering as you go, you're comparing all the songs for the album against each other, making it a cohesive whole?
Also, while some may have the chops to make this work, many people can really benefit from the outside, objective, experienced opinion of someone who masters every day. Does one get that by doing it during mix?

I mention these things to simply remind the possible readers of this thread that DiY is often a you-get-what-you-pay-for affair, and to thusly keep their minds open to all options to maximising their releases. Not to say that some folks can't do DIY mastering, some can! But I've heard some really atrocious DIY mastering jobs... (and some great ones too. The great ones are in the minority.)

Why do I beat this horse? Because, more and more with all the democrotization of releasing music these days, one only gets a single shot to capture a new listener's attention, to win them over. One bad first impression and a potential fan might never give a band a second listen. If one's goal is to try and get their music 'out there' in any kind of competitive fashion, then one should do everything in their power to make that release count... (and simply trying to get people to choose to spend their time listening to one's record is a competition for their attention, competition with not only other musicians, but TV, DVDs, the internet, McDonalds, their cat, their boy/girl friend, and so on and so on.)

So, I'll say it again. Some people are pretty great at doing it all themselves. But many just don't have the objectivity, skills, or tools. Does that mean they shouldn't try? Of course not. But they should keep their minds open to the benefit of some experienced outside asssistance. (Hell, I had the brass balls to master my last CD myself after having one of the absolute best in the country master the prior one! Might have been a mistake (it came out great, IMHO) but my budget simply didn't permit anything else - like a lot of folks! But I didn't 'master as I mixed' - I made the mixes each serve the song as best as possible, with the 'big picture' in mind, and then mastered later, after some distance, and on a different system in a different room.)

More thoughts...

[lucey]

As far as losing punch, that's compression (or bad conversion). Compression takes down peaks, be they vocals or snare or what have you. Limiting keeps the relationships but slams the whole thing into a wall, creating another kind of artifact. Clipping can work better or worse for this.

Slamming mixes is fine if you're trying to impress clients with roughs, but it limits the potential of the record. I challenge anyone to present a self-processed record that thay say could not be bettered with a mastering pass, and then to supply me with a couple of mixes sans your processing. Do we track and mix at the same time? No, not really. We imagine the mix and plan for it with the mic/pre choices, but we cant track and mix at the same time. It's two steps, like mixing and mastering. Tracking, Mixing, Mastering ... three individual steps. Each one done the best possible and wow! A surprise.


The post about communication is the best one here IMO. The few times I've had unhappy clients is when they didn't know what they wanted in the first place.

A few of the most elite MEs have a signature sound, most have a gear chain sound or two, but almost all will be happy to listen to you. Especially when you say ... "mid 90s levels are fine." And if you say "I'm sending well-labeled and calibrated analog tapes that were mixed for punch not volume" .. or ... "I want this loud so I removed the limiter from the mix buss and backed off some of the compressors" they'll eat up your every word.

[xSALx]

There's actually an easy solution to all of this chatter.

Get T-Racks and master it yourself. Done and done. Sometimes you just gota do it yourself.



Actually, I wish the bands I recorded had the budget to go to a real mastering engineer.

[parlormusic]

I'd change "no mix processing" to "no post-mix processing" though, as many will use a compressor on the L/R buss....

Good catch. That's what I was trying to say, but the words just wouldn't come to me