Mastering by another person

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:29 am

If I were to find funding to put out an album, I was telling my self that I would have to bring my tracks to someone for the mastering part. I feel that there is always that special "warmth" missing on my tracks.

Now, my question is "Do I bring my tracks mixed as they are, with the compression as it is?"

I wonder what you guys think

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:33 am

I had a track mastered before, by some commercial folks. It was an omnibus album, and everyone seemed to have sent in a "in house mastered" version. I sent both "in house mastered" version and the original mix, but the mastering guys used the in house mastered version anyway. I did notice that they recompressed my track above the compression that I was applying on my side, and resulted in a slightly exaggerated compressed sound. You may want to send in a non-compressed track to avoid this.

It probably depends on who's doing the job tho. You can always give them both versions and tell them to use your "in house mastered" version as a guideline.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2004-10-01 09:38 ]

nprime · Post by **nprime** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:24 am

Unless it's a really top end mastering facility, like Bernie Grundman, or some other big name, I don't think it will be worth it.

If it's just anohter guy with a computer and some plug-ins I don't think he is going to perform some miracle that you can't achieve yourself.

Having another person mix your stuff can often be rewarding, just because you get too intimate with the parts and can't see the forest for the trees, if you know what I mean.

I mastered albums for three years (in the early nineties) in Vancouver and I always got a little pissed at the people who thought mastering was the time to "fix" things. It would have been so much easier to have just mixed the damn material properly in the first place, instead of trying to save the mix with eq and compression.

Not that I put your music in this category.

This would also be a good time for me to say again,"What is this fascination with compression on everything?". Overdone it will suck the life out of a track, especially two track mastering compression. It upsets the frequency balance as well, my suggestion is that it be used sparingly.

My two cents...

R

[ This Message was edited by: nprime on 2004-10-01 12:25 ]

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:58 am

hmm, didn't know that you could run a mastering house with a bunch of plugins. Maybe I should get into this line of business. (joke)

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:12 pm

I'd only use compression in the mixing stage *if* there were a very dynamic instrument such as drums or harp that couldn't be properly heard against something more constant, like violin or wind instruments. Otherwise I'd leave compression for the mastering stage, and I wouldn't use too much, at that. I feel a lot of albums these days are compressed WAY TOO MUCH.

By the way, I do run a mastering house, and I use plugins.

It's at: http://www.indieanna.com

Shayne

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:16 pm

WHat I'm referring to is those $5000.00 analog compressors I hear so much about. They're supposed to add that warmth to a mix you just can't get on a computer. (I know I'm going to get riled for that last statement)

nprime · Post by **nprime** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:19 pm

Well...Kensuguro...that's my point, you shouldn't be able to, but some people call themselves a "Mastering House" with little more than that.

To me a "Mastering" facilty should have full range speakers (20 to 25,000 Hz +/- 3 dB)in an acoustically accurate enviroment with dedicated mastering tools, and be run by people who master for a living. (such as the above mentioned Bernie Grundman Studios).

...all I can say is that you should check the facility out to make sure that they have the speciallized gear and knowledge for the task of mastering.

R

[ This Message was edited by: nprime on 2004-10-01 13:20 ]

nprime · Post by **nprime** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:32 pm

On 2004-10-01 13:12, Shayne White wrote:

By the way, I do run a mastering house, and I use plugins. It's at: http://www.indieanna.com

Shayne

I don't intend to come off sounding mean spirited, but have you mastered any hit albums lately? How many years experience do you have mastering albums? Have you heard your mastering work on the radio?

I'm not trying to be a jerk. It's just that mastering is not mixing or recording or producing, it is a specialized art. Paul is right about the $5,000.00 analog compressor...when a mastering house builds it's own tape machines and compressors and equalizers and speakers and amplifiers, etc., then you know they are serious about what they are doing.

What did I learn mastering for three years? That to do it right you need all the above mentioned stuff, most especially the full range speakers in an acoustically accurate room! I didn't have these things, and I discovered the shortcomings of my system and eventually choose to quit rather than invest the tens of thousands of dollars it would have taken to get it right...

Maybe you have all this stuff, in which case my apologies. Still, there is no substitute for years of experience, that's what you pay for at a major facility.

These are just my opinions, I'm not trying to get anyone's back up! I'm sure that you do good work Shayne! I'm not trying to attack you personally. This is just what I learned...

R

eliam · Post by **eliam** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:37 pm

The guys at RSB mastering in Montreal are equiped with a full pro-tool rig and they prefer that people bring in their whole PT project so they can make very precise corrections instead of eqing the whole mix, which they are used to do also, of course.

For a serious production, a mastering session by a pro mastering engineer is a must, otherwise you might end up with freq imbalances, depending on the quality of the mixing rig as well as mixing skills of who's doing it.

Paul, if you want to get in touch with those nice people at rsb I can hook you up.

wolf · Post by **wolf** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:21 pm

Hi,

only a bunch of tips to take care of, IF you let do mastering out of your house:

1. talk to other people and their experiences with mastering facilities (you do it already, but I mean also people in your area

2. If you're choosing a facility in your area, be there for the whole mastering process and ask the guy, who does the mastering, what or if something could be improved, before he's starting (compressed or not)
2.1. bring in more versions, if you are not shure, which one is better (for him/you), think of the 1rst meeting like sniffing dogs, which will meet again
3. at the end take the mastered cd home and make a comparison to your own recording and find differences.
4. put the cd on every bad and good playback chain, you can find (compare it again to your mix and try to find the differences) and look, how it stands there.
5. warmth does not only come from $$$ equipment (btw, it is a myth, that digital=cold), it comes from experience, however good (=expensive) equipment is the key for good sounding records like experience is the key for well balanced recordings
6. It is no problem to let the guy remaster your record, if you are no satisfied with the results, even a third/forth time, if required. It shouldn't cost you more, if it is a cool guy (which most mastering guys are anyway)
7. don't follow the loudness war, it is much more worse, if the record finally is distorted and you can't change anything later
8. try to explain the mastering guy, what you're after and how the record should sound in the end
9. ask as much as you can (to learn and to see, if the guy understands your goal)
10. finally don't forget, he's doing a job for you and you pay, not the other way around

hope this helps a bit.

best
Wolfgang

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:59 pm

I agree with Wolfgang. A lot of this thread points to the fact that a mastering engineer and a mixing engineer work together. Usually the good ones build up relationships with each other over a long period of time. Mixing engineers and mastering engineers have to trust each other to build the best product. This talk of mastering houses entering into the mixing domain sounds pointless to me.

About compression: mixing through a compressor is really worth a try. It will actually reduce the amount of compression you apply to individual tracks, it will glue the whole mix together, and it does not have to squash the crap out of your material. Compressing the mix bus and over-compressing are 2 very different things IMHO.

nprime · Post by **nprime** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 4:59 pm

On 2004-10-01 16:59, blazesboylan wrote:

About compression: mixing through a compressor is really worth a try. It will actually reduce the amount of compression you apply to individual tracks, it will glue the whole mix together, and it does not have to squash the crap out of your material. Compressing the mix bus and over-compressing are 2 very different things IMHO.

Unfortunately I hear it used incorrectly more often than not. I am not saying don't do it at all, that would be hypocritical of me since I do it myself. I'm just saying that people have to really listen to what is happening when they do it and to pay attention if compensation is required on the actual tracks..

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:17 pm

I agree! Actually at this point I almost never apply EQ or compression on individual tracks. (I do apply expanders / gates where necessary, though.)

I like using bus compression for dynamics control but also as "effects" -- to change the tone of the song. Then the mix bus compressor holds everything together. I might be guilty of overcompressing -- it's really hard to say when everything around me is squashed so hard! -- but I actually think I compressed more before I started using the mix bus compressor. Now I don't care so much about controlling individual tracks, as long as the end result is pleasing to my ears.

wolf · Post by **wolf** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:45 pm

why shouldn't one compress the hell out of single tracks, if it is needed .. as nprime said, the most important thing is to listen to it (in context and always trying to be as objective as possible, I'd add here). Finally it depends on the goal: if you want a more live sounding mix or one, that just hits in your face or ..
If an overcompressed kick does good, take it .. far more care is needed, when mixing several things together and then applying compression (or whatever) to it. But again, some mixes need that kind of overcompression to achieve a special kind of sound. Hell, you can even put a filter or a bitcrusher on the sum, if it does good.
It's all about, what you're after (and how to achieve it, is a learning curve, in germany we say "Es fällt kein Meister vom Himmel", don't know, if there's synonym in english, but translated it is something like "a master is not falling from heaven", means nobody can know everything right after birth).

best
Wolfgang

Post by **garyb** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:58 pm

and in the end, that's it. if it sounds right, you're finished. mastering at home , in your studio or from an outsider will all give different results, maybe.., the point is, however, to have a finished product that sounds reasonably good(o.k., great!) everywhere it goes. in the end, good knowledge of the gear you have(for those of us here at least), is at least as important as $5000 compressors.($5000 compressors don't hurt...)

send it to me, i'll give it a shot...

*edit* wow, carried away again... just make sure you like the way that the mastering house's other customers sound, 'cause that's what they're gonna do to it.

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2004-10-01 19:00 ]

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:01 pm

Hold on, guys. I was talking about bringing my tracks to the mastering engineer with my mixes finalised.

I was wondering if I bring the versions with the compressor in the master buss or the non-compressed versions. Probably both....

Special thanks to Wolfgang for his tips

_________________
Paul R. Martin - Are we listening?

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2004-10-01 19:03 ]

nprime · Post by **nprime** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:21 pm

...oh yeah, your question, definitely both!

R

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:28 pm

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:36 pm

Wolf: nothing wrong with compressing individual tracks, that's just not how I'm approaching mixing at the moment.

GaryB: I agree except that 1) good mastering houses have crappy engineers, too; and 2) a $5000 compressor in the hands of the wrong person will lead to extreme cases of what NPrime is warning about: compression to the point of heavy distortion.

Paul: My original point about mixing through a compressor is that when you do that, you only have the compressed final product. I don't believe in spending a lot of time creating a mix, and then throwing on a compressor at the end. I never did -- it changes the sound of the mix substantially.

Before I started mixing through a compressor, I didn't apply mix compression at all. That works for lots of folks. The only alternative I would concede is adding a compressor on the main bus maybe 2/3 the way through the mix -- after things are sitting right but before you've finalized the "sound" of the mix. Any other approach is just silly to my mind -- adding a compressor with no serious consideration to how it makes the mix sound.

So if I'm not reading too much into your posts, I would say: send only the non-compressed mix. It's the one you've heard and spent almost all your time with.

$0.02,

Johann

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 7:51 pm

Sorry Johann, but you can put me in the "silly" bracket. And I don't think my stuff sounds worse for the wear...