An even better deal (IMO) is the 1-year license for $25 ... you can upgrade to the lifetime license later if you want, but since there's always something better coming out, I opted for the year-long deal. If nothing beats it by the time my license is up, I'll be upgrading for sure. This seems like a pretty good arrangement. BTW, the free demo is fully functional and not time-limited -- it just mutes every 30 seconds or so.

 
Nice... thanks for that!   $25 isn't much for a year's worth of use. 

Waves L1 set at -0.1.  Its only purpose is to catch "overs".  I save the real limiting (i.e., increasing loudness) for the final stages after the mix is done and bounced down to a stereo wav file, at which point I use Pro-L and/or Ozone 5.

I have a "by hand" method for increasing loudness at the mastering stage. I export the full mix to a stereo pair, then open it in Sound Forge. There I inspect the wave form for the loudest cycles, and run the Statistics tool to check the Max's and average levels.

If there are a just a few peaks significantly higher (and there usually are), I go in and either compress or even Volume Reduce **just that single peak*, until my reported Max is down to -7db, -10db, whatever. Depends on the tracks in question.

Then I Volume Increase the entire track by a uniform amount. The result is a finished stereo pair that is volume maximized, but which also preserves 99.999% of the original dynamic range.

When Mastering a group of songs into an album, I check that the final result matches first by ear, then by Statistics, for average levels, and tweak as necessary. The above procedure guarantees me plenty of room to work with.

Not a one-button solution, of course, far from it, but I prefer the control I get from going through all these steps.

Firstly I am of the opinion one should not be doing mastering processes at the time of mixing. It is something that should be done after and later eg a week or so. (gentle two buss compression does not apply here so much though and that can be very effective)

A good limiter can raise the rms value or loudness of your mix but so can turning it up at the time of the mix.

UltimateMusic Snob approach is OK and I do it as well but you can only go so far with this approach. The ultimate limiter for me is the PSP Xenon. It is one of the best there is. It can increase the apparent level way more than editing can. It is transparent and does not mess with your sound. But it is not cheap ($250.) Xenon can get the mix louder than editing alone. If you push the editing too hard to achieve loudness it eventually ends up sounding not so good. But I agree that editing can easily raise the rms level of your mix at least 3 or 4 dB without any artifacts. The trick is not to expect any one stage to do a giant leap in rms level of your mix.

Limiting is something that digital does very well and it is faster and more intelligent than any piece of hardware. I have never found a hardware limiter that works right and they will always let peaks through no matter what you do and how you set them up. You still have to edit after using a hardware limiter.

I use the K system and I might work at K-14 to start with. Each mastering stage might add 2 dB or so and editing can add a few dB here and there. Then the Xenon only has to add 5 to 7 dB max to your mix and it does it with ease and it still sounds clean afterwards. There are many controls on Xenon that can alter how it sounds while limiting. Something many limiters do not give you. It is complicated to a certain degree but once you understand it, it is possible to set the controls for the best result given the musical genre.

I am still finding that the better you mix the less and less you need the mastering stages later to get you to the sound you are after. If you are mastering hard for a desired result then you are doing something wrong in your mixing phase. Go back and try again.

Jeff, i am interested in your comment and your opinion is shared by many top engineers. My question, though: what is wrong with automating your mix, listening to it, coming back to it later, and then putting a mastering chain on your master bus? I don't understand what exporting the wave first contributes. I understand the value of taking a mix to a mastering specialist, but if it is the same person doing the mix and the master (or pre-master), what is the advantage of the extra step? There must be one since so many people agree with you, but I am missing it. Thanks!

I used to worry *way* more about not having low levels in individual tracks back when Redbook Audio (the part of it specifying 44,100 Hz at 16 bits) was my only recording option. Now with 96/24 and above, I don't have to worry nearly so much. Levels that would have caused stairstep artifacts previously can still be usable when boosted, as long as the prior pieces of the signal chain (mic, pre-amp) are clean and relatively noise-free. Now I just concentrate on getting relative levels correct during mixing, and then handle max levels later on.

I agree with everyone who says that no Mastering should be done at the time of Mixing. I personally try not to unless there is a problem with a particular instrument, but then, that's mixing. 

With that in mind here's what I recommend: Have a project Mastered professionally at least once and SIT IN with the engineer. Ask questions, let her tell you what you should be doing or not doing. Let her give you some guidelines to work in. Then, most importantly, ask what she had to do to get your mix polished off. Ask what could have been done better. Ask what common mistakes they find and use that information to your advantage. After all, you're not in competition with this type of engineer. You're a mixing guy. 

Educating yourself and learning the mastering process to the fullest extent you can is a must. Bob Katz has an incredible book. After going through that and sending a few more onto the Mastering engineer, and you'll learn way more that way than any book or forum could ever teach you. It may also help to try different Mastering houses. 

Now, with all of this said, here's my highest recommendation to ANYONE who wants to become the most proficient at mixing. Not only learn from watching other mixers do their jobs, but you may even have the Mastering engineer come visit you at your studio, so they can hear what you hear and see what you DO. I've done this a couple of times, and holy cow the things I was changing after that! Night and Day! I know this may be expensive, or not even possible in some cases, but if you live in a city where they exist, like I do, it's worth it to try.

UMS, I'm going to give you extra credit for listing Bach before Beatles in your sig. 

But really, "stairstep artifacts"? 
And what's the red book got to do with limiters?

Hi konradh The reason I prefer to master sometime later is simple really. The main reason is that after a long session of mixing your ears are just not in the right space to be making important mastering decisions. I can guarantee if you apply say overall EQ to your mix at the time of mixing and then do it a week later the overall EQ setting you end up with will be different to the EQ setting at the time of the mix.

If you read the books 'Behind The Glass' I and II many great engineers in there say when they mastered an album either at the time of the mix or the next day it was a big mistake. It was due to pressures from record companies and the like.

When you send a mix to a mastering engineer they are fresh in the morning usually and they have never heard your mix before so they tend to approach it from a very fresh perspective. If you are mastering yourself you can sort of do the same thing by leaving it a week before mastering. When you hear it again it all tends to sound a little fresher and you tend to approach things like EQ, compression and limiting from a different angle. I do anyway.

Another good reason too is it is great to live with a mix for a week. I listen to it in the car, at home while having a dinner party, on various speakers etc. (not my main monitors so much though during that week) All sorts of things pop up when you do this and you inevitably change a few things about the mix. And if you don't then obviously you have nailed the mix which is great because it also means no further work.

Gentle two buss compression over a mix can be good and it is possible to setup that compressor to just change things very slightly. I sometimes do that if I am aiming for a very loud master at the end of the project. It can help towards that a bit. It is like applying that very thin coat of compression paint first. 

Another great reason is, it is very handy having a full mix with no processing applied in your backups. It can still be 24 bit etc. Then if you don't like how you have mastered something you can also go back and change it. I like listening to a mastered track(s) too for a while after. You sometimes pick up some places where you may have overdone a process here and there. If you have that unprocessed mix available it is so easy to just recall everything and readjust.

LpMike75


Ozone 5 or T-Racks

+1