Brconflict, happy upcoming birthday and thanks for your posts too.

With respect to Danny's comments, my process is for my stuff. I don't mix or "master" anyone else's work. My process fits my recordings. He is right that there is a lot more to it than we usually talk about.
 
Regards,
Dan
 

Jeff Evans
 
The bass end is the thing that has taken me some time to get right. You have to do this. Everything else almost revolves around it. Too much bottom end ruins the rest of the spectrum and you will never get the rest of it sounding right. Once the bass end is sounding great everything else seem to fall into place a bit easier.
 

Yeah, the kick is by far the most challenging for me. I'm usually asked to make a Master loud as hell, but the two things I have to try and keep punchy are the kick and snare, meanwhile, letting the cymbals sound as if they are not affected by the punch. It's a fight in some cases, but when it's done, more requests come in. I don't get why people insist, but they do.
 
EDIT: To get the kick and bass to glue together. That's the big challenge, meanwhile retaining as much punch as the original had. We typically lose some punch for volume, but no more than say, the Foo Fighter's latest album.

Part of the disconnect here is the difference in giving a simple and direct basic answer versus explaining the complex details handled by a professional mastering engineer.
 
I am a decent engineer, but my function in life is writing songs and I will often call in someone else to remix my work; and I do not attempt what a mastering engineer does.  I don't have a fraction of the technical expertise CJ, Danny, or some others here have.
 
Whether that is required to produce an enjoyable and marketable product is something we could debate endlessly, and it is in some ways similar to comparing the $250MM blockbuster motion pictures to those surprise hits that cost $800,000 and packed the theaters..

Konrad. Well-timed.

brconflict: Most books don't show you how, they take your money feeding your need to buy more books. Interviews teach you 0.....name dropping gives you 0 credibility. I could drop 34 names of famous people I worked with while showing you proof...none of it would mean a thing. So you don't have to play that card with me bro. :)
 
No one named you. If I covered a topic you started or covered...others did too. No reason to assume. I do this for a living. I came into a deep discussion about mastering that started with a basic question. I felt some of it was misleading so I spoke my mind like I hope you would if people were talking about something you do for a living. There are enough people misled on this forum. I try to stop that when I see it. Trust me, my forum participation has been less and less. I'm leaving the place to people that know-it-all to corrupt the place further.
 
Us seeing eye to eye: We don't need to...you could care less what I think I'm sure and I'm cool with that. However, we actually are on the same page. You are just looking at it from one point of view where *I* look at it differently. Let me show you what I mean.
 
There are 3 mixes that get passed around. One, I won't even waste time on. It's the one you get from hobby guys or studio guys that aren't quite up to snuff with how things work. They try to give you something that is mastered before it's even mixed. You know the ones....these don't even count to me. I'm not bashing them...no one is perfect including me. But these types of mixes aren't what an ME enjoys because these guys infringe on the ME's territory all too often. They should just do the job themselves. Anyway...
 
1. Great mix: (this is what *I* meant) The master is not drastically different from the mix no matter who does it. Why? Because real engineers know how to mix and real mastering guys know when to make the "polish" call when they hear a good mix. You mention fighting with your kick drum and others mentioned bass etc. They don't have those problems. You don't get a mix from a dude that has a clue that needs to be high passed drastically at 45 Hz because the rumble is so insane it sounds like a tuba under water. That's what I hear on the mixes people post up on forums. You don't get over-compression unless the song calls for it as an effect and the producer made that call or someone knows how to use a compressor. You don't fight with doing surgery on a master. A great mix = a master that doesn't need much other than polishing here and there and of course, the whole album suite thing. What I mean is, you won't go ballistic with eq and extreme alterations. All the stuff most of the people post on forums and music sites are not what you would get from a major label or a real engineer that knows his/her stuff in terms on the eq use on the mix.
 
Personal pick-up note here: I personally don't want my mix coming back to me sounding way different, do you? Bob Katz mastered my last album. I mastered it myself before I sent it to him. When I got his back and compared, I didn't notice much difference and liked my master a little better in some ways. I went with his because I paid for it and he did all the coding etc....but I could have easily used mine. The reason being? The mixing was so good (imo), no one could have jacked up that album unless they didn't know what they were doing. The mixes of that album were fine just the way they were without any mastering. It didn't need extensive mastering and that's the point I'm trying to make. There are times when you perform surgery...and there are times when you enhance/polish as an ME. I prefer not to perform surgery unless I have to. A mix that's bad should be remixed unless it's gone and can't be fixed or someone is under the gun or they just don't want to fix it. All acceptable reasons. But I prefer to tell them to fix the mix if it's possible. Now back to your regularly scheduled sermon...
 
2. Balanced mixes: (This is where you and I agree) A balanced mix is just that. It's luke-warm. It doesn't kick you in the face with bass....it doesn't have all the mids it may need, it doesn't have highs that sparkle. And...in this situation the mix is soo well balanced, you can literally enhance it like a ME is supposed to do. This is where the producer fine tunes everything with the ME. This is where 40-50 Hz may get pushed....this is where the mids will improve/round-out the tonality and increase sound size and have a bit more girth....this is where the right highs add sparkle. The mix engineer/producer have left all this open so you and the producer can fine tune things the right way while mastering the entire album. This is a mastering engineer's dream. Especially when you are given a mix like this and there is no producer to where YOU create the curve and are responsible for the sound. THIS is real mastering and this is where the mastered version will sound different than the mix. This is also what you get from a major label 90% of the time unless they have a different agenda.
 
These mixes are thin so we have the power to add in the right low end and low mids. The mix is not congested with mids so we can add the correct mid mids and high mids. There are no sibs or harsh highs...so we can add them correctly and cut those that are just adding noise. You don't have that luxury when working with hobby guys. A pro that masters a bad mix polished a turd. There's nothing wrong with that...but I've heard as many before and after's where the after was worse than the before, so a lot of this stuff will always be subjective. Just because something is louder, right away people think it's better. I invite them to grab some of these dudes that provide before and after mixes....and lower the loud one to the other and compare. You'll be quite astonished at how sometimes, the "after" actually sounds worse. UAD has that problem. They try to sell their plugs based on extreme volume or eq differences...lol...that's a topic for another time though. :)
 
I've always said "when someone mixes something, there was a reason for them to export. They liked that mix. If that mix comes back sounding drastically different, it better be because they were told to do it to the extreme." If the mix sucked and was improved, sure....that's a plus and that's how you can tell a real pro mastering job. BUT.....the point is, a mix is not supposed to be drastically mastered to the point of not sounding like what was exported unless you receive specific instructions to do so.
 
As for loudness stuff, yes I know all about it and how it works. I've walked away from more jobs than I care to tell you about. I don't need the money that bad to contribute to the demise of fidelity. I master as loud as I feel something should be, or the client can go elsewhere. MY name has to go on this album too. As soon as you lose your snare drum crack and kick snap, you've lost. There are ways to go loud while keeping dynamics. I do it all the time. But there is a difference between loud vs. degraded audio. I never take on any of those jobs, though they WOULD be simple enough to make money from.
 
See man, I do this first and foremost for the love of music and to make a difference for the better for people. It's not just for the money though my time and experience are definitely worth something. I share enough on here for free to compensate. :) I'm happy to be in the position to decline jobs on a weekly basis and I've worked hard enough to have created those choices for myself.
 
Not directed at anyone in particular: You guys should master in any way you see fit using whatever tools you choose. I just gave the opinion of someone that does this every day that read this thread and felt some of it was wrong. Just remember, it doesn't have to be a dark art or something that is so technical, it loses you. The right knowledge is key and I try to give you all just that whenever I can. :)
 
-Danny

Please Danny, not less and less....more. I have personally learned so much from your "4 pages" of explanations. I am sure that I fall into your weekend hobbiest category in part one, but I enjoy the crud out of learning is stuff and every time you share this wealth of experience, my experience is a little further down the road to where I understand more of what you are saying.

I now get a kick out of the guys that think Mastering means pulling down the slider on the Limiter and squashing the life out of a song. That used to be me. As a result of what I have learned from you over the last 2 years, I now spend the majority of my time getting the mix correct. Then if I do a little polish, it is Mastering with a little "m".

The whole process of lowering the peaks with an audio editor is fascinating. I remember a video you did a while back on that subject and it was an eye opener for me. I hope to one day have an audio editor and try out that technique.

Cheers.

Agreed Wavelab does remove DC offsets without much worry. I've recently completed a Surf compilation, where two of the songs handed to me were badly fraught with DC offset in one channel. I suspected they were mixed by the same mixer, but I don't know. One of them I simply sent back to the artist and had them get it fixed. The other Wavelab was used, and with an ever-so-slight adjustment (for stereo image) in Waves S1, I got what the song needed, and we were on our way. 

What is going on above is not all that helpful. Danny, you don't need to say another word regarding your worth here. You have a great track record. You know that and I know that. 
 
Brconflic please don't take what is said in this thread as being personal or aimed at you. 
 
All I see is a clash of egos. That will get us nowhere. You both have good and useful things to say that is on topic. The rest is meaningless. Stick to that and you can't go wrong.
 
I am by nature blunt and to the point. There is no need for anyone to prove anything. Ones words will do that for them. 
 
 
 
 

Is there any general advice about DC offset?  I had always assumed that if I imported a WAV and removed the offsets, then it was good to go -- that no further processing could introduce offsets.  It seems that assumption is a bad one.
 
If that is the case, then is there any reason why we should NOT remove DC offsets at every step of the process, or at least make sure to do that when we do the final stereo mix?  There really isn't any loss of fidelity by removing the offsets too frequently is there?
 
Other than Process - Apply Effect - Remove DC  Offset, is there any tool in SONAR that does this?
 
Is there any tool in SONAR that tells us how much offset there is?
 
Ideally it would be great to just drop a VST on the master bus right before the limiter to eliminate that issue automatically.  Is there any such VST?
 

brconflict
Danny, are you suggesting that because (and I've mentioned this in other threads) this isn't what pays my bills, that I'm merely a part-timer? And you're suggesting that a predominant amount of my experience and knowledge is from books? And third, I had to at least show you some element of working connections I have in the industry because you had initially discounted me (albeit not naming names) and my opinions from the start as either misleading, inexperienced, or simply incorrect. If it's your prerogative to maintain your clout or to discount others' experience, you're welcome to it. I'll stand back and just watch next time (EDIT: Meaning I will just stay out of the conversation if I'm not helping).
 
I will add this. Yes, we both agree on the same results from different angles. I don't think that's a bad thing, either. I'm just going to say that we do make money Mastering, and if our customers are happy and coming back or bringing friends, then there must be something we're doing right.

Are you kidding me with that first paragraph? I'm triple reading it just to make sure I didn't read it wrong. Ok let me breathe and read it again....
 
*smacks head* Again...are you serious? LOL! You don't have to stand back and watch. I never said or implied that to you or anyone else. Worst case scenario, if my initial post made a few people take a look at themselves, I did my job. Do you not see quite a bit of misleading information on these forums at times? Do you care about people being mislead while you spend time here? I do. I shouldn't care but I do. Sue me for being passionate and wasting way too much time in my life being influenced by the wrong people. One day, I made up my mind that if I had a little credibility, I'd use it for good and help people whenever I could.
 
For the record, I know nothing about you...I have no clue what you do for a living though I saw you talking to the Bakers about software and mentioned what you had experienced in your life with bug reporting and the release cycles etc in a company you worked for maybe? I didn't insinuate anything about you or personally attack you or your credibility, did I? You've got to be kidding me with this!
 
You flashed a few names at me, mentioned that you heard/learned things from interviews and that you learned things in books. I said there's no need to play that card with me and books and interviews have never taught anyone "how to". All this because I made a mention that some of the stuff in this thread was disturbing to me and you took it upon yourself to think it was you. *smacks head* (I'm starting to get a red mark on my forehead)
 
I never asked you to justify yourself and thought I explained myself in a rather courteous manner in my last post considering you felt the need to mention my confidence and how you wouldn't say "you don't know what you're talking about." What that means, I have no idea but I took it as you maybe WANTED to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but chose not to this time. I'm only confident because I've had successful results and have taught others to have the same or similar results. I've never been stuck-up nor have I held back information when someone was in need. I don't come on here all pompous with all the answers while failing to lead/teach by example. Wait...you'll take that as me insinuating that's you. Forget I said that. Please stop insinuating. I think you're blowing the entire thing out of proportion.
 
There's an obvious communication problem here that can't be fixed so let's stop talking before one of us goes off. You can even have last word and reply to my post as sarcastic as you need to. If you are going to assume every little word/phrase I say is attacking you and take things to heart that were not said to you, we really have nothing more to talk about. One thing I absolutely hate...is when a person insinuates or assumes something. I spoke about a genius (or a guy that thought he was one) on a forum one time. Some other guy thought I meant him so much, he started one of the biggest firestorms of my internet life. He was so wrong, it wasn't even funny. This seems so familiar...
 
John: Thanks. :) I honestly have no ego believe it or not and could care less who's better than me or more in the know. I'll be the first to say I like to think I'm decent at what I do because I believe in me and have consistent results. But I'd never say "I'm great" or better than anyone else. I never EVER look at things that way and will send something to another engineer before I'll just take money. I'm harder on myself and more competitive with myself than I would be with any living person. I don't listen to others and compare, I listen and worry about bettering what I did last time. 
 
I didn't say a word to this man for him to assume so strongly that I was talking about him while twisting every word I've said into a "suggestive" attack/insinuation like he has done. Just because he has a complex doesn't mean he needs to push the insinuations on me. I didn't deserve this. I'm a grown man, if I have a problem with someone, I have no problems expressing my points to that person. I just made a mention that there were things that were missing in this thread and there were things that were wrong to me as this conversation evolved. Some of them, were disturbing to me. Am I really required to annihilate people by naming names and instances where I thought things went wrong? All this so that people with complexes don't have a heart-attack thinking I meant them?  LOL! *throws hands up* This is so not worth my time anymore man. :(
 
-Danny

cparmerlee
Is there any general advice about DC offset?  I had always assumed that if I imported a WAV and removed the offsets, then it was good to go -- that no further processing could introduce offsets.  It seems that assumption is a bad one.
 
If that is the case, then is there any reason why we should NOT remove DC offsets at every step of the process, or at least make sure to do that when we do the final stereo mix?  There really isn't any loss of fidelity by removing the offsets too frequently is there?
 
Other than Process - Apply Effect - Remove DC  Offset, is there any tool in SONAR that does this?
 
Is there any tool in SONAR that tells us how much offset there is?
 
Ideally it would be great to just drop a VST on the master bus right before the limiter to eliminate that issue automatically.  Is there any such VST?
 

Not really. You remove it when you see it. As far as your theory about remove it and you're good to go...it depends. Let me set up a situation for you so you'll see it from my experience. Other people will probably chime in with theirs...I speak for me only and am not competitng with anyone nor am I trying to tell you the advice you have already received is incorrect.
 
I get a song from a client. I ask them to try to get as close to -3 dB as possible. When I import the file, sometimes it has a little DC on it...sometimes a lot sometimes none. It depends what they did on their end. It could be outboard gear, or loads of compression that makes the song appear louder than it is which can raise DC's. I can remove this DC now...which I like to do. Or, I can do it at the end. It really makes no difference sound wise, but along with creating a good master, I like to have good numbers to match all throughout the process. Of course you never rely on them or live by them, but they are important to me. Again, if Ludwig has great numbers on every mix, I need to also. :)
 
Think of it like cooking. If you don't clean your stove immediately or pick up something that dropped on the floor, you have to work twice as hard to clean it. Or imagine being in construction and you hear from the grapevine "dude does incredible work, but he's so messy, I'd not have him back again." I like to take care of things when I see them whether they come from what I do or what others have done. You're not doing anything wrong if you create a little DC offset in your material. It's when it's excessive you need to worry.
 
When I export and then do the sample rate conversion, dithering, limiting etc...the DC will ramp up to maybe .024% depending on how loud I make the mix as we approach -0dB. Limiters will pump up the DC every time depending on what your outceiling is and how much threshold you use. (I like to use an outceiling of -0.1 for waves, -0.3 for mp3's.)
 
I remove the DC and save now as a newly converted 16/44. Sometimes when I don't remove DC's as often as I normally do, the DC may get that -.001% I mentioned once it's saved to 16/44. So I may pass it through Wave Lab DC removal one more time. Some editors will show a DC when others will not. Wave Lab says no at times where Adobe or Sound Forge will show -.001%. It doesn't matter and none of this is worth you going crazy over, I promise. You'll probably never get enough DC to ruin speakers or your material. I've tried to purposely raise it just to see how bad I can get it before it causes trouble. It's something Mastering guys take care of out of principal because it shouldn't be there.
 
If you got a mix back from Ludwig, though .001% is nothing....he doesn't ever leave a % in the stuff I've analyzed. However, Katz leaves a little and doesn't have his numbers as consistent. For example, here are the stats on the most powerful tune on my album mastered by Katz.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8zrfir2l1fs5o7h/AON.JPG (Keep in mind, an mp3 will show you different stats than a wave. This is a wave file stat and the most true.)
 
Here's the same song in Wave Lab: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rogygx8vux8c57i/AonWL.jpg
 
Neither are bad, but I'd not be happy with those numbers for myself or my clients. It does sound good so the numbers don't matter the same as watching an eq graph. Sometimes an eq graph looks terrible yet the song sounds good. Sometimes they look awesome and the song sounds horrible. LOL! To me the numbers thing is just a mark of an ME's work ethics trying his best to do good work like a builder would. You know, doing great work while keeping things neat and clean. I like to have all aspects at all times just for myself though none of it is super important other than to me. So honest, like I told G before...don't worry about them unless you are hearing problems and seeing huge numbers while suspecting that DC's may be the culprit. :) Hope this helps.
 
If you're still a bit unclear, a really good read about it with diagrams here: http://u104.guest.isc.org/pure-data/dc-offset/
 
-Danny

Is there anyplace inside Sonar or the normally included VSTs to see the DC offset numbers?  If not, are there any low-budget VSTs that will show this info?

Thanks Danny and Dave.