simple mastering questions

I prefer the concept of creating a totally unprocessed stereo file and bringing that back into a later mastering session. Notice I have used the word later. Those who master at the same time as mixing are doing themselves an injustice. You need time off between those operations to recover from all that mixing! You will make different mastering choices when you do it that way and the resultant mastering will be better. I allow a week or more. Also when you listen to your mixes for a week you will hear stuff that can be improved and if you can recall a complex mix easily it is easy to modify the mix. Another great reason for ITB mixes and a powerful external digital mixer.

A mastering engineer has not been biased with the mixing process and they will create a new session so why not you. Your software will have nothing to do and will operate faster and better. All your CPU power can now focus on the better mastering processors instead of making the music as well.

It is still a good idea to have quality reference material in the same genre handy for checking against during the mixing and the mastering process. It is effective in removing the less than perfect conditions that may prevail in your studio and will help you  make a mix and master that will sound much closer to the best productions out there.

What is the hurry! I use this process not only for my own (or library) music that may not be on such a big deadline but also for clients as well.

Sharp,

it doesn't have to be a week.  I keep the "mix" with my project.  Then I use a copy of that file to work on in Sound Forge, tho SONAR will work, too.  So, yes, just open it in a new project.

@

I like to do my mastering on the exported stereo wave file for 2 reasons:

1. mastering plugins can be quite expensive to run and you don't want them competing with your track plugins for CPU time, or for your DAW to be having to do all your mixing each time you playback.
2. mastering is usually done across a set of tracks, in order to get them sounding consistent. This means it's useful to import one song per track and to be able to apply song-specific trim or processing before sending to the universal mastering bus. This is pretty impractical to do if you attempt it with the original mixes.

There is a downside though - sometimes you get to the mastering stage and realise that one of your mixes needs tweaking, so at this point you will need to go back, make the adjustment, render the track again, and reimport it into your mastering project. But this is a small price to pay for the convenience benefits above.

Jeff Evans


Yes Kylotan you are right about the multiple tune/song thing as I have not even mentioned it yet.

BTW Studio One has a great mastering section in the program and a great feature also in that after you remix anything the newly printed mix is automaticlly transferred over to the mastering session. No importing necessary. Mastering sessions reflect any changes in any mixes etc..

I use X1b and don't have Presonus Studio One.

I still think mastering at the time of mixing is only a quick fix and you will still get a better result as per the reasons outlined in my post #2.

But there are other factors at play. The mastering while you mix concept is probably better in a one off situation but mastering is also about bringing together a bunch of pieces for a total experience. eg 10 or 15 songs.  So in that scenario it is a good idea to master one of the unmastered tracks first and also compare that to reference material as well.  Then with that track mastered you can master all the others using the first mastered track as a reference.

This will require you to alter the EQ and compression and levels to suit. Something that cannot be done when you are attempting to master a track right back at the mixing stage. Suppose one of your tracks has a little too much mid range presence.  Are you going to go right back to your mix session and alter the processors in your master buss.  Hardly, and you won't have the reference track or the others around either to compare it against. Blind!

A good mastering engineer is not going to want you to pack on a whole lot of mastering tools in your mix buss so why do it.  So if you are mastering yourself then apply the same approach.  It is a good idea to have a mix without any processing at all or very little.  If you print a mix with a lot of mastering processes on then you don't have that. You may not be able to go back to a full mixdown session for other reasons as well.  A separate mastering session also tends to make you tweak and mould the sound a bit more and spend more time on each track.  Putting mastering processors on a mix tends to make you select presets and go or do it much faster.  Are you really doing the track justice?  Mastering is NOT about presets. Presets have no knowledge of the music that is passing through them. It is about fine tuning and careful adjustment for each and every tune in a CD. If you do not have the skills to do these fine adjustments then don't do it. Find a good mastering engineer instead who can.  Presets will get you a result but you will get a better result if you do the fine tuning yourself.

You do not have to wait a week but it is better IMO if you do. 3 days is OK but after a week you have forgotten how the track sounds and when you hear it again it will sound fresh and you will have a better idea of what to do. Do the mastering in the morning as well after a good nights sleep!

I have read countless articles where famous engineers said they mastered either the same day or next after a mix and it was a BIG mistake. But it was done due to deadlines and in the end they were not happy with the final outcome.