MASTERING an uncompressed mix

[logancircle]

Here's the scenario: You are a mastering engineer and you're given a record to master. It was recorded in DAW and at no point during the recording/mixing of the record was compression (a compressor or tape) used. In general how would you approach it? Is/was this at all common?

I hear some old records that sound very non-compressed. I have an old Doors record that varies wildly in volume. ?

[pandatone]

what do you/they want it to sound like done? i can only hope, when i master stuff people send me uncompressed stuff.. i normally put on a couple soft multiband compressors.. then some eq, then a final multiband limiter.. unless i want some pumping. then an old single band comperssor/limiter.

or! just dump the whole thing down to some tape hot (the just right about of hot). some EQ (as needed per track to make it all sound "the same".. and call it done.
i've done that a couple times and enjoyed it. (on just single tracks though, never a whole LP)

panda

[logancircle]

Yes, of course a mastering engineer wants a file that wasn't compressed on the master bus. I am talking about no compression on any of the tracks, either. ?

[pandatone]

lots of frequency specific compressors to control the parts that need controling? then i multiband limiter over the whole thing? really. im just guessing. does it sound shit?
just try stuff till something sounds good. maybe a couple parallel limiters.. then a multiband over that.. ear it!

panda

[carlsaff]

This would require, as always, a conversation with the client. Those mix decisions could be aesthetic choices made by the person who tracked and mixed the record, and that they want preserved.

However, if the client says that they do NOT like the way it sounds, then I'd have to get creative. I've found that the Crane Song STC-8 can do wonders for gelling a very "loose" mix such as you describe.

Typically, the best mixes are those where sources that need dynamic control receive compression, and those that fit into the mix well without compression are left to breathe naturally. In other words, less is more, unless there's a problem. Is there a problem? That's the more important question than "is there compression."

[I'm Painting Again]

approach it as in someone tells me "make it sound good" "do what you think is best man" or like "I want this and this and that done" ???

there is just no right way to approach it if thats what your looking for..it all hinges intrinsically on the source material firstly..and then the client's desires for what you make happen to whats given to you..

[MoreSpaceEcho]

In general how would you approach it?

i'd make it sound good. which i meant as an annoyingly glib reply but really it's basically true. if stuff was just jumping out all over the place and it was distracting then i would compress it in some fashion, perhaps multiband, whatever. but if it was all well played and well recorded and just happened to not have (or need?) any compression then i'd leave it. pretty simple. you just have to listen to it. and like carl said you talk to the client and see what they want, what their expectations are, etc....

[logancircle]

I know what I think sounds good, that's what I would do, but I was wondering if there was a general set of tools a mastering engineer uses when mastering recordings known to have been recorded without compression going in or at mixing time. The reason I'm asking is I found some wavs of this cool obscure band I recorded years ago live through a mixer to 16-bit digital and only now do I realize how cool it was. They broke up but awesome music survives and I want to bring it back to life. Like Dylan's basement tapes, that kind of thing.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

just make it sound awesome and then let the rest of us hear it!

[jmoose]

The biggest questions banging inside of my head would be, do they like the mixes?

And then, how important is any kind of level?

'Cause it'll never be able to get super loud, like "big boy" loud. That's not such a bad thing IMO! But if they want level then getting any is going to be pretty rough to do while maintaining the true balance & musicality of the mix.

In other words, some of the guys in that phone booth are gonna get mangled pretty badly.

In general though, I'd start with some very light leveling at like 2:1 and maybe a light limiter. Start out just tagging it 2-3dB on peaks and see how much worse it gets from there.

[I'm Painting Again]

I know what I think sounds good, that's what I would do, but I was wondering if there was a general set of tools a mastering engineer uses when mastering recordings known to have been recorded without compression going in or at mixing time. The reason I'm asking is I found some wavs of this cool obscure band I recorded years ago live through a mixer to 16-bit digital and only now do I realize how cool it was. They broke up but awesome music survives and I want to bring it back to life. Like Dylan's basement tapes, that kind of thing.

nope. tools are just a means to an end..it all depends on how good you can make it with watcha' got..no rules..

[joeysimms]

.. 'Cause it'll never be able to get super loud, like "big boy" loud..

Sure it will: but the listener will have to turn it up to get there.

[MASSIVE Mastering]

I'll take a well-performed and recorded mix with no compression over a mix that *needed* compression just to sound right any day.

Bassists that are steady... Drummers that hit within a dB every time... Vocalists with style... Those are beautiful to work on.

And two comments - As mentioned, a mix like that might sound a little "loose" - But a nasty-cool comp like the STC8 or a VariMu can whip it into shape.

And as far as volume is concerned - Generally, mixes that actually have the dynamics intact before the mastering session wind up with *much* more "volume potential" than mixes that were robbed of dynamics or compromised in the headroom department...

I get them in fairly often from several artists that make it a habit to record live shows - Aux-buss live to two-track mixes - No compession, no processing, often done nearly "blind" with headphones only. I was working on one not a couple weeks ago that wound up being so loud (but *clear* also) that I was waiting for God to call up and complain about it. Having mixes with those natural dynamics left intact combined with a good performance usually takes a lot of "abuse" before it starts crying.

[bniesz]

Yes, of course a mastering engineer wants a file that wasn't compressed on the master bus. I am talking about no compression on any of the tracks, either. ?

Frankly, that's not really your job to worry about; it's the mix engineer's. I'm not sure there's anyway for you, as a mastering engineer, to make up for that without making massive sacrafices - unless you suggest they remix.

I have to assume they've left out compression for a reason, and are overall happy with the mixes they've handed to you. I would treat it like any other record, and use my ears and best judgement.

Did they tell you they used no compression on the mixes? Or is it somehow sonically apparent?

[NewAndImprov]

I'll add my voice to the choir that says you gotta do what sounds good.

Some years ago, I was asked to master a demo disc for a local acoustic folk/celtic band. The guitarist recorded the stuff, and he's kind of an audiophile nutcase (I say this affectionately, he's also a friend). They rented a couple of nice mics, ran them through a Mackie 1202 (because it had such great specs!) and tracked direct to DAT. He'd never really recorded before, but had done a lot of homework. When he gave me the tracks to master, he was very specific that they wanted NO COMPRESSION on the mix, they wanted the "natural dynamics" of their performance to shine through, and my job was mainly to assemble the recording. Oh yeah, no editing either.

OK, so he knew that digital distortion was a bad thing and to be avoided, which is right. But, to be on the "safe" side, he tracked everything so the peaks were at -20. There was barely any signal on the tape. Also, they hadn't really paid attention to mic placement, they set up a stereo pair, and then they setup the way they normally did onstage, and tracked. So the violin was way upfront in the mix, and the guitar was barely there.

So I made 2 masters, one where I basically normalized the recording and didn't do anything else, and one where I added some compression, a little EQ and a gentle amount of L2 limiting. Gave them both sets of masters, didn't tell them what I had done. They unanamously agreed on the compressed mix.

I think it's cool to take a concept and run with it, but at some point, you have to stand back and ask if the concept is making the record sound worse, and trust your ears.