hot masters take two

Author
ChewingAluminumFoil
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 158
  • Joined: 2007/07/30 09:34:34
  • Location: Scottsdale, AZ
  • Status: offline
2008/09/14 23:21:09 (permalink)

hot masters take two

My last post about getting a hot master didn't turn up that many useful suggestions about mastering but generated a lot of opinions about production and such. Which is all wonderful but ultra nebulous.

And there was a little bit about how the music industry has trended towards mixes that are simply too squashed and hot.

So setting aside the "take it too far" thing, how do you do it well? I continue to use Counting Crow's Mr. Jones as one of my references. To my ears it's a nice clean sounding rock track but viewed in a waveform display like Goldwave, it's using *lots* of the available bit space.

So how to you get that surreal crisp bigger-than-life but not compressed-to-the-gills sound?

I've been experimenting a bit more with my two most recent tunes but don't have anything substantially better that I wanna share yet. I've backed off on the multiband a bit which gets rid of most of the audible compression artifacts but soft clip is still my friend for shaving off the little spikes. Sorry if clipping is against your religion--you certainly wouldn't like analog tape and probably wouldn't enjoy old tube equipment!

For a while I used a standalone program called MultiMax but I think it was a kinda guilty pleasure. I used it to make mixes that were juicy but audibly compressed. It's probably possible to use it well, but having switched more to SONAR for tracking I guess I'm wanting to know more what's going on at every stage.

OK, over to y'all.

CAF
#1

23 Replies Related Threads

    John
    Forum Host
    • Total Posts : 30467
    • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/14 23:46:41 (permalink)
    Every stereo has a volume knob. I have never understood the need to have a song as loud as possible when a user need only turn up the volume. Now some would say that it sounds better. That is not based on fact but a perception. The source level only determines the total amplification needed not the final loudness. Loudness at an SPL is going to be the same if its the same SPL. This is with out dealing with compression. Add that and its still the same if they both are compressed the same. So getting it loud for the sake of loudness is a waste of time and a cause to be concerned by the notion of clipping. Maybe its not clipping on your gear but it could clip on some one else's gear. Do what you like its your music.

    Best
    John
    #2
    ba_midi
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 14061
    • Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
    • Location: NYC
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 00:18:27 (permalink)
    So how to you get that surreal crisp bigger-than-life but not compressed-to-the-gills sound?


    This is just one man's opinion (mine), of course, but ...

    I think there are a few things that go into this. The first is not necessarily "compression/limiting". It is getting the individual tracks sounding good. That relies on
    - good EQ'ing
    - good levels (track levels) - with the understanding of "Summing" (see below)
    - good balancing
    - good choice of sounds (samples/synths, etc - if using synth/sampler plugins)
    - good mic'ing (if doing live recordings)
    - good room balancing (speaker placement, room treatment and so on)
    - good mixing

    Summing occurs when more than one source is sent to the same destination - and the combination of the sources (ie, the summing) increases the levels. Two tracks peaking at 0 db and sent to the same bus will be louder because each track's level is summed, thereby resulting in more level/amplitude. This is often overlooked.

    I think you get the point.

    However, assuming you have a project that has good tracks and overall sounds good to you, then the mastering phase will be important.

    A few recommendations ...

    In your master bus - or however you mix a 'master output', roll off below 30Hz to get rid of the very low end mud. Doing so also allows you to boost things like kick drums at about 60Hz (good punch) without getting too much "boom" in the speakers.

    Consider using a high shelf anywhere between 1500 and 5700 Hz to increase the apparent mid to upper mid range.

    Always use some type of brickwall on your master bus to limit the final stage output to no more than -.02db. This will also prevent blown speakers.

    I almost always use PSP Vintage Warmer on my Master Bus while tracking - even if I change to a different limiter/compressor later.

    Think in terms of Stems as well. IOW, I have 4 Drum busses .... 1 for the entire kit (minus the kick) send to a drum submix bus, 1 just for the kick (and occassionally some other drum part) sent to the drum submix bus, 1 drum aux just for FX sent to the drum submix bus , and 1 "Drum Submix" which can be thought of as the 'master bus' for the drums only -- and this bus is the one sent to the global Master Bus.

    Then I have a seperate bus for all Synths, a separate bus for Bass, and so on. All these get sent to the Master Bus.

    Another way to get that loudness without too much compressed sound is to use any of the following:

    Saturators (Voxengo makes a very good one, VariSaturator),
    Stereo Wideners (use sparingly!)
    Parallel Processing tricks
    Master Limiters (such as Boost 11, etc).

    All of this is subjective. All of this is about using your ears and skills. All of this is about your own personal taste, and so on.

    But I hope I've offered some food for thought at least.


    post edited by ba_midi - 2008/09/15 01:11:22

    Billy Arnell (ba-midi)

    http://www.ba-midi.com/music/files
    Music gives me life, so I give life Music.
    Thanks for listening - Let's Dance to the rhythm of life! :)
    #3
    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30423
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale - Davie
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 02:50:15 (permalink)
    So how to you get that surreal crisp bigger-than-life but not compressed-to-the-gills sound?

    Just dont compress it to the gills and use complimentary EQ so you dont get a build up of lows and so your instruments dont mask other instruments and ummm i cant continue. Its too huge of a subject and ill be writing for months and i need to sleep. Buy some books on mixing so you get an understanding on how to use the tools and what tools to use.
    Cj

    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. We also do TV commercials, Radio spots & spoken word books
    Audio Blog
    #4
    spindlebox
    Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 2645
    • Joined: 2007/05/30 07:56:11
    • Location: Kansas City, MO
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 03:01:43 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: John
    I have never understood the need to have a song as loud as possible when a user need only turn up the volume.


    Me too, until we had a song put on a compilation CD and I noticed ours was slightly lower in volume than the rest of them. Not enough to really suck, but enough for ME to notice. I deliberately had JamzOR make sure not to squash, and he does a great job, but maybe I have to tell him to go ahead and max it in order to avoid that type of discrepancy. It's a little irritating. On the one hand you want to do the right thing for your music, and on the other hand, if it comes on the radio or otherwise sits side by side with tunes this day and age . . . . well you get my point.

    It kind of sucks when the bar has been raised to a certain point and you have to make concessions like that. But, the problem most certainly does exist as I have found out.

    It's one thing to have your volume knob set in one place while you're listening to an entire project, but there most certainly is that HOT SPOT that needs to be matched when you send your stuff out into the SQUISHY/SQUASHY world — whether we like it, understand it, or not.
    post edited by spindlebox - 2008/09/15 03:04:21


     

     
    #5
    Black Pug Studios
    Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 396
    • Joined: 2007/12/19 17:44:29
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 03:23:34 (permalink)
    I always thought this was a good thread on some of the stuff Billy was talking about. Good levels = good mix.

    Recording and mixing levels
    #6
    ChewingAluminumFoil
    Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 158
    • Joined: 2007/07/30 09:34:34
    • Location: Scottsdale, AZ
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 08:44:20 (permalink)
    Mixing levels are completely different from mastering levels. Yes, you need lots of headroom when mixing but when you're done it's time to noogie your track into the available dynamic range. We've been doing this for decades. If you own an LP or CD it's been mastered.

    Again, I don't want to make the music sound bad but I also don't want to give up 6db or more of loudness just cuz there are some stray easy to tame peaks that eat up all that headroom. I want to know how to reign in those oddball peaks without adversely affecting the rest of the mix. And finally, let's keep mixing separate. That's a whole other art room, obviously interdependent, but I wanna talk mastering, baby.

    ba_midi has some useful sounding components that I'll investigate now. CJaysMusic alludes to buying books. Specific titles? Links? Thanks.

    CAF
    #7
    AT
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 10654
    • Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
    • Location: TeXaS
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 10:43:29 (permalink)
    Try some nice hardware. I've been using the Komit compressor/limiter, which is a nice piece. A rather tame compressor mated to a brickwall limiter. Compress to taste, then use the make up gain to push the limiter as hard as you want. Any edge you get is bery, bery nice - more old school than new digital crispness, tho.

    The only downside is the cost, of course. But the Komit is two units per channel, and you can use it for tracking, too! The brickwall will keep vox, bass etc. from going over and the gentle compressor helps even out the sound without messing with the bass. Just about everything sounds better going through it, even if you don't push it.

    @

    https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
    http://www.bnoir-film.com/  
     
    there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
    24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
    #8
    bitflipper
    01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
    • Total Posts : 26036
    • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
    • Location: Everett, WA USA
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 11:32:05 (permalink)
    Don't forget your high pass filter at between 20 and 40Hz to cut out subsonics that will screw with your limiter.


    All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

    My Stuff
    #9
    R!Soc
    Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 660
    • Joined: 2006/03/08 15:32:29
    • Location: Calgary, Alberta
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 13:31:31 (permalink)
    You should really read this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Engineers-Handbook-Second-Audio/dp/1598634496/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221499805&sr=8-1

    Opened my eyes to a lot of mastering issues / considerations that impact what you do.

    His mixing book is also great.
    #10
    Danny Danzi
    Moderator
    • Total Posts : 5810
    • Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
    • Location: DanziLand, NJ
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 17:14:24 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: ChewingAluminumFoil

    So how to you get that surreal crisp bigger-than-life but not compressed-to-the-gills sound?

    OK, over to y'all.

    CAF


    CAF, the problem is the actual instrumentation you are using, the front end processing part of your studio and the abilities of your soundcard.....good converters etc. Ever record something using a Sh!tblaster or a Realtek? Then record the same thing with a REAL card made for recording? I'm not talking about a good consumer card, I'm talking about the really good recording cards. There is a huge difference in the actual size of the sound due to having a real card handled the audio. Also, quite a few of our instrumentation scenarios are using direct recorded instruments. A direct recorded instrument (though some sound very realistic and huge depending on who the engineer is) usually fall short of what a real studio gets when using several mics, the right pre-amps, front end processing and an engineer that really knows his stuff. You're at an instant disadvantage with "big sounds" because most of the pro recordings we know and love were recorded in different rooms with several mics and all the right gear to accentuate them.

    So you really can't compare the sounds you get against a pro sound that has 2 million dollars more in gear and the right situation to compliment it. I know you are strictly talking about mastering here. But what you have to understand before you get to the mastering stage is, the instrumentation has to be big and crisp from the tracking stage. This bigness you are in search of should not come from the mastering procedure. Sure, you can slightly widen the mix in a few different ways, sweeten up a few eq tweaks and compress things in moderation, but the big sound needs to be already there before you master it. To be honest, if a mastered project comes back to you sounding VERY different than what was sent, 3 things were the reason for it.

    1. The mastering engineer had to polish a turd.

    2. The mastering engineer requested you remix the material but you didn't have the capabilities to do so, so he was stuck with what you sent him and had to make the best of it.

    3. Your eq curve was so off, the mastering engineer fixed it to the point of the mix sounding completely different than what you originally sent.

    Most mastering engineers with credibility and integrity, will not take on a "polish a turd" project because that is not their job unless you tell them "look, I know this mix is bad, but it's all I have...please do your best to make it sound as good as possible". You'll probably pay more for that because the work involved will take way longer. But I'm serious when I tell you, the instrumentation that is selected and recorded from the creation stage is what sets the tone as to how big or small a mix will be. Making things sound bigger with impulse verbs or spacial enhancers isn't what Counting Crows used. You can instantly hear the great, real instrumentation used on that tune as well as several mic feeds on those instruments, assorted room mics, panning of all the mic feeds and then of course mixing them all together.

    If they didn't take that approach, there are other little tricks that most engineers don't share. A good example of this is John Bonham's drum sound. There wasn't much technology out at that time like we have today....but to this day, that's one of the biggest drum sounds in rock music....using limited technology. The most important thing you can hone in on in your quest here, is picking the right instrumentation for starters. How that instrument conveys itself and stands on its own is what allows your mix to have the big, full sound you are looking for. For example, no matter what we do to a basic drum machine sound, it will never have that "pro" sound we all desire to have. Sure, you can come close, you can get something you are satisfied with, but it still won't compare. The same with direct guitar recording using modelers etc. Though they sound great, are easy to use and have come a long way, there is something about mic'n a guitar rig with multiple mics that just allows the sound to literally be bigger in our sonic field when you use the right mics, the right mic techniques, and mix a little room ambience into the equasion. Record a direct guitar tone using a modeler...then record an amp. Play them both back in mono and you'll see just how much bigger the amp tone is. Then pan them to one side and solo each one, and listen how the direct tone seems to get smaller. The mic'd tone still stays fairly large.

    This of course is not the case in every mic situation...sometimes the mic used or the engineer may not know how to capture the sound correctly...so it may even wind up being smaller. But the reason the mic'd tone usually sounds bigger is the room ambience and the air pocket that is created between the cab and the mic. This air can't be simulated, though you can come close with an impulse effect. All this stuff has to be taken into account and it needs to be taken care of before the mastering stage. If you widen things up too much when you master, you are basically accentuating the stereo effects and stereo tracks used with widening. The mono instrumentation will literally stay centered and appear smaller. The stereo effects and instrumentation will get wider. Thus, your mix has now become too seperated. The more seperated your mix is, the worse it will sound. I don't know if anything I've said here makes sense to you, but it's what has worked for me and what I have found out to be the case in creating big sounding, crispy mixes. All I do when I master, is tighten up the eq curve, make the levels consistent (sometimes this is a per part fix) compress a little to keep the little peaks and valleys controlled due to the eq curve I have created, and run a Waves L2 in moderation to where I hit at about -0.2 without killing dynamics. From there, if the L2 or the compressor has taken away any of my spaciousness, I may add a very subtle stereo enhancer just to put back what I may have lost. But it's rare for me to add something like that because I always compress and maximize with dynamics in mind and never squash anything. Hope some of this helps. :)
    post edited by Danny Danzi - 2008/09/15 17:15:55

    My Site
    Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
    #11
    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30423
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale - Davie
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 17:24:09 (permalink)
    Theres the Smart guide to Mixing and Mastering. This is the last one i read. Ive read and have 8 books on this subject... books will enlighten you to things you have no idea about. no one will type 300 to 400 pages in a thread for you. They will just go over some basic or brad things, like use a high pass filter, but there is so much more you need to understand. This is why books will help you. There made for teaching you how and why things are done
    Cj

    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. We also do TV commercials, Radio spots & spoken word books
    Audio Blog
    #12
    Geokauf
    Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 912
    • Joined: 2003/12/01 20:59:45
    • Location: Port Chester, NY, USA
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 20:52:45 (permalink)
    Every stereo has a volume knob. I have never understood the need to have a song as loud as possible when a user need only turn up the volume.


    Hello,

    It’s not an issue of getting the listener to listen at a certain volume; you have no control over that. You want your recording to sound full and strong in context with the other tunes that are being listened to - at whatever volume. When comparing recordings the one that is louder will always seem more powerful or “significant.” That’s because our ears have a sweet spot for volume. Below and things sound “insignificant” above and things sound “strident.” The sweet spot moves depending on the amount of ambient noise. In a very quiet environment you can discern and enjoy much lower sound levels. But even at lower levels the louder tune will always seem more powerful.

    I think this is the genesis of the loudness wars (not trying to get someone to play a recording loud). Loudness was also a concern 30 years ago (ouch!) when I first started making phonograph recordings. You wanted your record to sound “significant” following anything else previously on the turntable. By “insignificant” I mean if the level is too low compared to the previous selection listeners will start chatting and the music will become background. A “significant” tune will stop conversation and listeners will turn and face the speakers to listen. There is a limit to how loud you can make a phonograph record (as far as the RIAA spec for the phonograph needle’s travel) so compressing after a point will not increase loudness. However you wanted your record to not be the softest one of the bunch.

    GK
    #13
    SWANG
    Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 191
    • Joined: 2008/08/26 18:07:57
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 21:05:21 (permalink)
    geokauf,

    i understand your points, but there is a major difference between mastering with the goal of achieving an attractive level (for lack of a better) and the "loudness war" you refer to in your post. most contemporary commercial recordings do not attract my ears at all. in fact, more often than not, their effect on me is just the opposite (quality of the music notwithstanding). to my ears, the original cd issue of songs in the key of life is a far more comfortable and warm listening experience (i still most prefer the original vinyl). by contrast, the digitally remastered cd reissue from a few years ago sounds harsh, cold and just too flat to me.

    just one person's view...and what do i know?
    post edited by SWANG - 2008/09/15 21:08:17
    #14
    kgarello
    Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 187
    • Joined: 2008/01/26 00:35:51
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 21:55:02 (permalink)
    I'm working through
    "Mixing Audio - Concepts, Practices and Tools" by Roey Izhaki

    It is teaching me a lot.

    http://www.amazon.com/Mixing-Audio-Concepts-Practices-Tools/dp/0240520688/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221529937&sr=8-1


    Ken

    Sonar 8.3 PE
    Echo Layla 24 X 2
    Fostex PM0.5/sub
    Mackie Onyx 1640
    #15
    ChewingAluminumFoil
    Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 158
    • Joined: 2007/07/30 09:34:34
    • Location: Scottsdale, AZ
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/15 23:35:05 (permalink)
    OK, I just ordered two books on Amazon. Oddly enough the Bill Gibson S.M.A.R.T. Mastering book was *really* expensive so I passed on that but ordered the other one recommended here plus one by Katz.

    Regarding Danny's comments about the importance of the tracking, yup, no argument. And I'd probably put more emphasis on that pesky "playing" stuff, not just recording and gear. True, a mastering engineer can't polish a turd. But it's amazing how much fuller a lame-o home production can sound when "mastered". I remember a friend and I had been watching that last game of the Wolrd Series and the Cubs lost (again). In a beer-fueled fervor he drug me back into my studio and we hastily recorded a song he made up called "No More Cubs Songs" taking comfort in the fact that at least he wouldn't have to hear anymore pathetic amateur elogies to the Cubbies. He called a friend at the local Top 40 station, we drove out with the two track 1/4" master, they popped in on cart and played it on the air. It sounded totally "radio" thru all that FM goo... I couldn't believe it had come from our quickie little drum machine session. That's kinda when I started to realize there was a whole other step to the recording process (even tho FM is about as processed as it gets).

    Anyhow, thanks for the book recommendations. I'll do a little reading, check out some other processing tools, do some more experiments and be back soon.

    CAF
    #16
    Black Pug Studios
    Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 396
    • Joined: 2007/12/19 17:44:29
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/16 00:02:15 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: ChewingAluminumFoil

    OK, I just ordered two books on Amazon. Oddly enough the Bill Gibson S.M.A.R.T. Mastering book was *really* expensive so I passed on that but ordered the other one recommended here plus one by Katz.

    Regarding Danny's comments about the importance of the tracking, yup, no argument. And I'd probably put more emphasis on that pesky "playing" stuff, not just recording and gear. True, a mastering engineer can't polish a turd. But it's amazing how much fuller a lame-o home production can sound when "mastered". I remember a friend and I had been watching that last game of the Wolrd Series and the Cubs lost (again). In a beer-fueled fervor he drug me back into my studio and we hastily recorded a song he made up called "No More Cubs Songs" taking comfort in the fact that at least he wouldn't have to hear anymore pathetic amateur elogies to the Cubbies. He called a friend at the local Top 40 station, we drove out with the two track 1/4" master, they popped in on cart and played it on the air. It sounded totally "radio" thru all that FM goo... I couldn't believe it had come from our quickie little drum machine session. That's kinda when I started to realize there was a whole other step to the recording process (even tho FM is about as processed as it gets).

    Anyhow, thanks for the book recommendations. I'll do a little reading, check out some other processing tools, do some more experiments and be back soon.

    CAF

    The last time the Cubs were in the world seies was 1945.
    #17
    AJ_0000
    Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 738
    • Joined: 2007/05/05 01:32:03
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/16 02:02:42 (permalink)
    You said you don't want to talk about mixing, but mixing is where it happens. You have to go through track by track, remove all unnecessary frequencies with EQ, and compress correctly. That allows you to boost all of the levels without getting mud.

    If you want to talk about current Top 40 type stuff, I read an interview with a guy who's mixed a lot of it. His basic explanation of what's currently happening is this:

    1) Kick, snare and vocal up front, loud and dry.

    2) Everything else pushed into the background as much as possible.

    3) Smash the crap out of it with a limiter at the mastering stage.

    I'm not suggesting anyone follow that formula, but the point is, the first two are done in mixing.
    #18
    ChewingAluminumFoil
    Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 158
    • Joined: 2007/07/30 09:34:34
    • Location: Scottsdale, AZ
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/16 11:07:17 (permalink)
    Wrt to Black Pug's comment, oops, yup, musta been the 1989 playoffs.

    CAF
    #19
    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30423
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale - Davie
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/16 15:17:46 (permalink)
    Oddly enough the Bill Gibson S.M.A.R.T. Mastering book was *really* expensive so I passed on that but ordered the other one recommended here plus one by Katz.

    Damn, i just read that book and it was good good good. You cant go wrong with B. katz though. Its good to read a few books, so you get different perspective on the process.
    cj

    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. We also do TV commercials, Radio spots & spoken word books
    Audio Blog
    #20
    B_Nez
    Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 330
    • Joined: 2004/01/19 02:23:14
    • Location: Navarre, FL
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/16 20:39:23 (permalink)
    Short Answer:
    First, make the best mix you possibly can with at MOST a good sounding compressor on the master with very frugal settings to just "glue" everything together. Export your stereo .wav
    Second, listen to your mix and take notes on what you hear. Determine what EQ tweaks (if any) are required.
    Third, ditch the multiband. If you haven't quite gotten the hang of a mastering limiter and mastering EQ, you'll likely do more harm than good with the multiband.
    Throw a good mastering EQ and an L2 (or similar) Limiter on the track. Adjust the L2 to taste. You want to obviously get some limiting and loudness happening, but try to make it transparent as well. Experiment using the auto-release and a manual release (for some music manual responds better - opens up the top end). Once you're happy with the loudness and dynamics, clarity, etc. Make the EQ corrections - we're talking 1-3 dB changes at the most. Keep it simple. You should get some good mileage out of this process. After you get some practice with this, then you can experiment with the multiband instead of the EQ. Read up on the different ways of employing it, though, and recognize that some songs are better served by EQ, and some the multiband.

    FYI, the reason I say to adjust the limiter first, is because the limiter tends to alter your bottom end the more you clamp down, so you'll want to get that out of the way first and then adjust with your EQ.

    MOTU 828mkII, M-Audio Octane
    Event TR-8N, Sonar 6.2.1 Producer
    http://go.berkleemusic.com/Samsound
    http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=380296
    #21
    Rbh
    Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 2349
    • Joined: 2007/09/05 22:33:44
    • Location: Indiana
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/16 21:14:25 (permalink)
    I like to look at low level Expansion as the first step..... I look at dynamics control from 2 directions...boosting lower level audio allows a lot less compression necessary for peak level control. This has the effect of hearing more dynamic range though at first thought it would seem counter intuitive.

    I7 930 2.8 Asus PDX58D
    12 Gig
    Appollo
    CbB, Sonar Pro, Reaper, Samplitude, MixBuss
     Win7 Pro

    http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=902832
    #22
    Black Pug Studios
    Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 396
    • Joined: 2007/12/19 17:44:29
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/17 01:58:07 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: ChewingAluminumFoil

    Wrt to Black Pug's comment, oops, yup, musta been the 1989 playoffs.

    CAF

    I figured you were talking about the playoffs. Unforntunately, being a Cubs fan, I knew that one off the top of my head.
    #23
    tecton
    Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 575
    • Joined: 2005/03/07 07:34:07
    • Location: Melbourne, Australia
    • Status: offline
    RE: hot masters take two 2008/09/17 05:25:49 (permalink)
    A hot master really begins with tracking, if you have a high RMS to peak ratio when tracking then as a natural resolt your mix can be very hot with out having to do anything more then turning up the levels.

    RMS is where you get our volume from and peak only wipes out your headroom and clips the meters.

    Of course you need both and different material has a natural different equilibrium of the two.

    Don't Fight The Physics.

    #24
    Jump to:
    © 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1