Mastering Tips

Timely thread. I was fighting a couple of versions of a mix tonight and some experimental mastering approaches. The 300Hz dip was required to keep distortion out of the final. I still could not get the RMS to peak values of commercial tracks but as you point out above, an external compressor can help close in on the gap.

Jeff: Great read and info for those curious about some of the things that go on with mastering. There are a few other things I'd like to share with you also that you may want to try.

You mentioned the 60 hz thing. It may appear that way, but it's not really the case at all. If you listen to the new rock today or even hip hop or rap, you can definitely hear frequencies that can go down to 40 hz on some things. You may not see them register on your scope, but they come by way of sub harmonics that may have a tight Q so that the material has a tighter low end. A good way to control this stuff is with a multiband compressor. The UAD precision comp is unreal at this. As a matter of fact, it's so transparent I have since retired my API 2500 from my mastering chain in certain situations. The cool thing about the UAD MB is, it works like a cop on patrol. It only kicks in when it needs to and doesn't "work all the time".

For example, I may want a little 50 Hz rumble to come through on a kick drum. I'll carve it up with a tight Q just to get a bit of that sub harmonic going on and then tighten it up so it's not flabby or rumbly by setting my MB to control it. It will only kick in when it gets past a certain threshold and you won't even hear it. This is also good on bass guitar notes that may be due to a 5 string or 6 string bass. Those low notes will jump out at different times to where you either have to automate an eq on that section or just run the MB instead and it will patrol the border for us. :) Of course sometimes the API is used along with the MB to where I can use less of the MB...but it depends on the material. But I just about always like to have the MB on patrol because it just keeps things tighter and allows you to let certain frequencies you'd never normally allow, to come through in moderation with full control. :)

Middleman: the reason for this is due to peaks. If peaks aren't controlled, that's where your mix is going to cap level wise. The one thing with making things loud is to control the mix as well as peaks and NEVER over-work your compressor or limiter to do this for you. This is where everyone fails when they try to get commercial levels. The key to being loud is to have a mix that's tight without peaks all over the place.

For example, we can use a compressor to control peaks and a limiter to finally handle everything. That's still going to give you a "cap" before you notice artifacts. If you're going for commercial levels, you have to manaully level the audio. I learned this trick from Bob Katz but took it in a slightly different and more "anal" direction.

Once you control those peaks in full, the mix not only sounds better, but it LOOKS better too and believe it or not, there are numbers we use that describe a mix. The better the mix sounds and looks, the better these numbers look as well. Quick story for you...

I did a master for a studio a few weeks ago. The studio and myself were both happy with how everything sounded. Somehow, something got screwed up on the studio's end and the client was unhappy and went over the studio's head and came to me. They wanted to know if I actually mastered the last file they had received. When I told them "yes" I was asked "when"?

The mastered file *I* did was done in early March...they had just received this other file a few days ago and they felt it definitely wasn't my work because I had done work for them before through this studio. When I got the file that was supposedly mastered by me, sure enough that wasn't the one I did. It didn't sound right or look right. And, the "numbers" I'm talking about were not MY numbers. I have my own thing with min/max samples, RMS, DC offsets, audible noise in beginnings and ends...all my files look just about identical all across the board. The numbers thing (though sometimes meaningless if something sounds terrible) is sort of like my trademark or fingerprint so to speak on my work. You'll never see a DC offset and my min/max sample numbers will always be exactly the same on both sides. These numbers of course change due to how loud a client may want a master to be. Like at -0dB we'll get somewhere along the lines of a 32764/65 on min and max samples (32768 means you've clipped somewhere and it's hard to get 32767 on all ends unless you're Bob freakin' Ludwig) and at -0.1 we'll hit the area of about 32400 min/max samples at 16/44.
 
But those numbers can tell a story when they don't match and you can tell when someone relied too heavily on compression or limiting instead of manually taking care of the audio. Making those numbers all line up to where the audio looks good and sounds good is no easy task. It's taken me years to get them all close like that. But like I say, they usually speak for themselves because when you have a good looking wave file that sounds good, just about always the numbers behind the scenes look good too. :) There's an entire process I do to get things like that. The editing alone per song can take me an hour, but it's worth it because the end result makes an incredible difference and in my opinion, it's the right way to do it.

I recently hired another engineer that was really good. He's been at it nearly as long as me and has mastered and engineered for some pretty credible artists. He's been sitting in on my sessions recently and during the process he just keeps on saying "dude, you're a lunatic with this stuff...I can't believe the attention to detail you give this stuff as well as how precise you are with every little thing!"

But these are the differences between a dude that likes to polish audio and call himself an ME and a guy that really IS an ME. Anyone can try to do what my friend Tony calls "little m mastering". You're not going to compete with the commercial music out there. Don't even waste your time. Ozone, all those plug suites etc...not to bash on them, they work for people that are just messing around...but trust me, it's not the right way to do it. There are so many things to consider when mastering that need to be done BEFORE you even physically master the material.

I go through 3 phases here. I'm currently working on the new Wallow Sound CD from our good friend ChuckC on this forum. Once he sends me the final mixes, they need to be edited from the ground up. I have to listen to each song in headphones to listen for pops, crackles, noises, oscillations, clicks, and any other nuance that may degrade the audio. While I'm doing this, I'm manually leveling the audio by hand or with automation and adjusting peaks and writing down every change I make in note pad as well as the times in which these changes were made. Every little noise, click, pop, peak or "thing" that gets adjusted, gets logged to the numbers as well as what tool and setting was used to remedy the problem. Every plug used gets saved with name of song and the client name as well. 

This way, if I have to go back and remaster something from the ground up, I always have my little cheat sheet for faster editing and knowing exactly where to look for things and what was used to fix them. When this is done (which takes anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour depending on how much needs to be done) it gets saved as "name of song Pm" which stands for "pre master" and will come out to be a nice -3dB without extreme peaks. From there the file is ready for the mastering process. When I add all my processing and am happy with how it sounds, it gets saved as "name of song master <insert bit/sample rate>"

From there it goes into a "suite" where limiting is applied, dither, sample rates are converted and final DC offsets are removed. From there, dead space in beginnings and ends are removed and levels at start and end are adjusted to infinity so there is no hiss or noise to begin the tracks and there's nothing audible in the ends.

Fades are done at this point so that my limiter wasn't tripped off. Always do those last after everything is done and converted. The last thing you want is a compressor or a limiter trying to adjust your audio on a fade in or fade out. When all this is done, there is another listening session in headphones to make sure all pops and clicks etc have been taken care of as well as through 4 different monitor systems. If they pass these tests, all files are saved as "name of song_DZL_Master16_44". DZL stands for DanziLand and is my final file name that tells me everything has been done. That name doesn't go on a tune unless it's been totally worked and tested.

So this is along the lines of how I do things here. I feel I can compete every bit with commercial recordings level wise and can get even better sound with a slightly lower volume. People have to remember...when you master something the right way, it can be a little lower because once you turn it up, it goes up and up and up until you max it out. With a super loud master, it caps off at about 5 on your volume knob and doesn't get any louder as you go up. It gets more distorted and sounds terrible. By the time you hit 7 or 8 on a good master, you can't breathe because it's so loud and clean and it will walk right on by the loud master. :)

-Danny

OK, well, I can already tell this thread is going to get bookmarked under my "favorites" browser tab.

I love this forum.

Thanks. Good tip.

Great tips, guys.  Thanks for sharing.  I'll be saving this one.

A lot of mixes seem to build up energy around 200 to 300Hz. I find a little dip there can make a masive difference. Maybe -3db or so and not over a very wide range either.

I used to do that, too. No more. Turning down the mud range on the master doesn't clear up mud, it just makes it quieter. 


Lately I've been taking a different approach: figure out which instrument(s) should own that range and dip its competitors individually. You still avoid excessive mud, except that it now sounds like something.

To quote slipperman: "Don't scoop the low mid, make it your b i t ch!"

Danny, just to clarify, you'll go through a song and use volume automation to bring down any major peaks? Basically manual limiting, before you do your actual limiting. Some would call this excessive. I like excessive. I am a bit of a perfectionist and do this exact kind of thing.

I have not done much 'mastering' but looking at picking up plenty of little tips along the way. I've read Bob Katz's book through a few times and can't wait to perform things like automation over the entire album adjusting every song so it flows perfectly, song to song. I love that kind of stuff.

There really is so much to learn... But understanding the mastering process will really help in mixing. If I know what kind of things I will need to look out for and fix in mastering, I know what I can tweak in mixing to make that process easier later on.

Brilliant. I think we're on exactly the same page here.

I know exactly what you're talking about in regards to different hats... Doing this whole thing from scratch. So many hats. I got to write the songs. Then put on drummer and producer hat and practice and write, then recording engineer hat to record those drums. Then technical comping engineer. Then timing engineer (I'm not a great drummer). Then bass player. Back to producer! Recording! Then eventually all of the instruments, then mixing! Different stages of mixing, pre master, technical, perfectionist, mastering, listener. Blah. And I'm also getting into film. Got film clips and website and artwork. Learning After Effects. Photoshooting. Lighting. Sheesh, the list is endless.

But if it's technical, I love it! :D

Great thread and post Jeff, and Danny too of course. Still trying to find my way around this subject. Thanks for sharing.

I separate song writing and engineering.

I can attest to Danny's methods for sure and when he says this stuff, he's not preaching or throwing out technical stuff for the purpose of impressing anybody either.   At the start of working with him on this record I thought I had the mixes pretty good.... with his guidance each of the 10 songs on the record sounded a thousand times better even before he mastered them.    getting the sub lows and rumble out of the way at the mixing/track level was huge. 
   Everyone on here has always given me props on my guitar sounds which stands to reason and Danny liked them too... however everything else in my mixing was out of whack.  Bass was too low (tone/frequency wise), kick was too low, toms....too low, vocals often needed more presence & then a De-esser  (do ya see the pattern here?).  

  The differences between what I had at the start and the "final mixes" are like the differences between a rough mix and a good quality demo, then he mastered them and they just stomp and you can crank em til your ears bleed and your head friggen explodes but the speakers still don't distort!  It's nuckin' futs.
    At the end of the day I would try to learn his techniques but there is soo much left I still need to tackle on the recording side that well.... for years to come I will leave the mastering up to him so I can concentrate on the rest of it.  Mastering is a whole other art  that is appropriately named and is best performed by a "Master" of that art.