Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

Advice for mastering


wishface
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's a ton out there. What is the best and simplest advice? I use Reaper with mainly stock and free plug ins. I'm using an eq a compressor, an exciter, a saturation plug in and a limiter (and a plug in for monitoring levels). I may or may not use all those fx, but what order should they be used in? Does it matter?


Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, wishface said:

There's a ton out there...

 

In my view, much is misleading. 'Mastering' is used, mostly, to adapt a finished song to its target medium or audience. The same track, to be put on a CD, or a cassette tape, will have different mastering parameters. A song destined for car-radio FM will be treated differently to one being produced for HiFi buffs. If you're producing for Soundcloud, it's not the same as for a hard-copy CD.
That being said, if you really mean 'how to mix and treat the final product in my home studio', the most important tool you'll need is your ears. The next most important, for me, is a reference point. This means, to me, having an idea of what sound I'm trying to create, compared to other material, from other sources (my favourite band, or a song I know well; probably several...), that I'm wanting to get close to. This doesn't mean copying, simply listening to whatever it is that makes it 'good' to my ears, and that I want my stuff to sound as good as (OK, vain hope, but...). Another important notion, for most stuff, is the famous 'less is more' discipline. If you want to add an effect, do it, by all means, then reduce it by half. Save successive 'takes', with the Fx added, and listen back now and again to the original 'dry take. Is there really an improvement..? Disk space is not an issue, these days, so it's a Good Idea to save each and every evolution, and go back at times to hear what (if any...) has got better. Surprises are in store, often enough, as things go off the rails. No matter, just go back to a previous version and re-build in another direction. Takes frequent breaks, go outside for a walk, have a cuppa, and have fresh ears again. Listen through several systems, if possible. Mix with headphones for detail, then play back through monitors to see if it still works. Often not stated, but very useful, is to listen to the finished track in mono; there are many gremlins in a stereo mix that become flagrant heard in mono.
In what order..? From those you've listed, I'd have a hard time stating, as I don't use such stuff, basically. I have a 'standard' Reaper (Cockos...) NY Drum Compression bus preset which is my default overall drum compressor, and a Cockos NY Master bus compressor on the output, again, by default. I do, on occasion, turn these off, for particular stuff I do, but that's it, for me. No exciters, or saturation etc, but that's just me. How should you use them..? Run your compositions through them in whatever order and listen to the result; choose what sounds best to you. That's as much advice I could give; others will doubtless complete, correct and/or contradict the above, most certainly.
Hope this helps, a little. :friends:

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wishface said:

Yeah, I don't get this referene track thing. How does that work? 

 

Sorry, crossed lines here. Not a 'reference track' in Reaper, but any disk, song, album, concert that I like, and that will help me judge my own stuff. An example..? I worked for a while at Shepperton Studios, for Trident, cabling mixing consoles (early-mid '70s...). To test the console modules, we'd run a tape through them, and make sure that all the features worked as expected. One tape was, I believe, a sub-master of 'Ziggy Stardust', so I got to listen to it a lot. When I want to buy any HiFi gear, that's the tracks I'd listen with, as I can (or rather, could...) hear if the HiFi was up to snuff. When I'm composing in Reaper, in an orchestral vein, I'd have in mind a rendering of Schubert's Ninth, to see if my trombones are up-front enough, or if more cowbell is needed (that last bit is a joke, of course...). That's what I mean by 'reference tracks'. My hearing is now very bad, but I'm still able to do stuff (OK, rotten stuff, but stuff all the same...), by comparing with other stuff that I know. I can't hear a hi-hat, for instance; if I hear it in one of my mixes, I know it's too loud..! :lol:
Does this help..?

Edited by Dad3353
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

 

Sorry, crossed lines here. Not a 'reference track' in Reaper, but any disk, song, album, concert that I like, and that will help me judge my own stuff. An example..? I worked for a while at Shepperton Studios, for Trident, cabling mixing consoles (early-mid '70s...). To test the console modules, we'd run a tape through them, and make sure that all the features worked as expected. One tape was, I believe, a sub-master of 'Ziggy Stardust', so I got to listen to it a lot. When I want to buy any HiFi gear, that's the tracks I'd listen with, as I can (or rather, could...) hear if the HiFi was up to snuff. When I'm composing in Reaper, in an orchestral vein, I'd have in mind a rendering of Schubert's Ninth, to see if my trombones are up-front enough, or if more cowbell is needed (that last bit is a joke, of course...). That's what I mean by 'reference tracks'. My hearing is now very bad, but I'm still able to do stuff (OK, rotten stuff, but stuff all the same...), by comparing with other stuff that I know. I can't hear a hi-hat, for instance; if I hear it in one of my mixes, I know it's too loud..! :lol:
Does this help..?

thanks, but I'm still not clear how that works. Do you mean import an mp3 of a song i like into Reaper? I thought that's what a reference track was.

 

I'm not really following, sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reference track is a song or songs you listen to in their original form so you can compare your mix/master to. Normally you'd just run it from the source CD player or record deck through the same amp and speakers as you are listening to your mix on and then switch between the two different sources. That way you can hear how the song you like the sound of sounds through your system in your listening environment and compare and contrast your mix/master. If there isn't an easy way to hook up an external CD or record player then you could import the song(s) off CD and drop it into a spare track in Reaper, but import as a WAV/AIFF and NOT MP3 because you need to compare like for like. Also make sure that this reference track is not being processed in any way in Reaper, so that means you won't be able to use plug-ins on the main stereo bus. This is generally why it is better to play the reference from an external source, so there is no chance that it is being affected by anything other than the amp, speakers and room.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, carlitos71 said:

Or get a mastering engineer who knows what they are doing! Just saying…

Well, i'd like to be the mastering engineer who knows what they are doing. Not least of all because...money!

 

I don't think what I do is terrible sounding, but I am always looking to improve. if it's a question of getting beyond stock or free plug ins, well that's too bad.

 

Part of it is that I use a lot of low fi sounds

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

The reference track is a song or songs you listen to in their original form so you can compare your mix/master to. Normally you'd just run it from the source CD player or record deck through the same amp and speakers as you are listening to your mix on and then switch between the two different sources. That way you can hear how the song you like the sound of sounds through your system in your listening environment and compare and contrast your mix/master. If there isn't an easy way to hook up an external CD or record player then you could import the song(s) off CD and drop it into a spare track in Reaper, but import as a WAV/AIFF and NOT MP3 because you need to compare like for like. Also make sure that this reference track is not being processed in any way in Reaper, so that means you won't be able to use plug-ins on the main stereo bus. This is generally why it is better to play the reference from an external source, so there is no chance that it is being affected by anything other than the amp, speakers and room.

Ok, thanks. 

 

What am I looking for though?

 

I'ms till a bit confused about this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wishface said:

thanks, but I'm still not clear how that works. Do you mean import an mp3 of a song i like into Reaper? I thought that's what a reference track was.

 

I'm not really following, sorry

 

BRX is close enough to what I meant. I don't do a specific 'listen to one, then the other', I rely on my memory, mostly, to 'hear' the reference  in my head. As I stated, my ears are shot, but the principle is still valid. Don't think it too literally; I don't compare side by side two songs in Reaper. I just know (that's to say : remember...) what REM (for example, or Bowie...) sound like, and listen to my track in that light. I can't explain it better than that. It's certainly not what's usually meant by 'mastering', but that's just semantics.
None of what I do costs Money. That's because even church mice would consider me to be 'poor'..! My budget is low, very low. Listening, though, costs me nowt. Cockos (Reaper...) has all one needs as far as basic, and even quite sophisticated, treatment is concerned, with high quality, and bundled with Reaper. I wouldn't know what improvement they could make on LoFi stuff, as that's never the direction I'd be aiming for, but, technically, all the EQ, Compression, Delay and/or Reverb is covered, and much more. Improving is, in general, a thankless task, based on diminishing returns and the guilding of lilies, to a great extent. Once the piece is finished, leave it alone for a couple of days and listen again. Tweak, if required, then leave it again; rinse and repeat. Don't be afraid to scrap the 'tweaks' and go back to the previous version. Most of the time the difference is minor, and often detrimental. I favour the expression 'Perfect' is the enemy of 'Good', although it's possible that it's me doing it all wrong, of course. :$

 

Edit : To me, when recording, a 'reference track' would be, for instance, an acoustic guitar track in Reaper going through the chords of the song whilst I record the drums (I'm a drummer...). It's just there to have a reference to the structure, and would not (or very rarely...) be used in the final mix, once the other instruments and vocals are done. As I do much of my stuff in France, I'd call it a 'piste témoin', really.

Edited by Dad3353
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's right 👆; mastering is a specific treatment, whatever the source, necessary to 'shape' the whole sound so as to correspond, technically, with the target medium or audience. Mastering a classical concert for a vinyl pressing or for release on DVD imply many subtle shifts in frequencies and compressions, including creating a stereo image from a 7-1 source, for instance. There are studios and engineers that are dedicated to this. It's not uncommon for an album, once recorded nd mixed, to be sent to a mastering engineer, just to get his/her particular result. If you're 'home recording', I wouldn't bother with the notion until you're wanting to put out a whole album into the wild. A mastering engineer would take the total output, and treat it all so that it sounds coherent across all the individual songs on the medium chosen for release. The mastering for streaming would be quite different to that for CD, or vinyl, or video clip. It's not really a subject for the recording and mixing of individual songs; it's an additional concept, with its own 'magic', after all else has been done.

Edited by Dad3353
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

The reference track is a song or songs you listen to in their original form so you can compare your mix/master to. Normally you'd just run it from the source CD player or record deck through the same amp and speakers as you are listening to your mix on and then switch between the two different sources. That way you can hear how the song you like the sound of sounds through your system in your listening environment and compare and contrast your mix/master. If there isn't an easy way to hook up an external CD or record player then you could import the song(s) off CD and drop it into a spare track in Reaper, but import as a WAV/AIFF and NOT MP3 because you need to compare like for like. Also make sure that this reference track is not being processed in any way in Reaper, so that means you won't be able to use plug-ins on the main stereo bus. This is generally why it is better to play the reference from an external source, so there is no chance that it is being affected by anything other than the amp, speakers and room.

  

I put an extra sum master buss before the main output buss. Everything is then routed through that, which in turn is routed to the main output buss.

Any reference track imported into my DAW is routed straight to the main out, bypassing the sum buss... That way I can have any mixing/mastering FX on the sum master bus, which doesn't affect the reference track.

I have a spectrum analyzer on the main output, so visually, I can see what is going on as well as using my ears.

 

Just my way of doing it, of course...

:D

Edited by lowdown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wishface said:

Ok, thanks. 

 

What am I looking for though?

 

I'ms till a bit confused about this

 

Any song that has a similar overall sound that you are aiming for with your compositions (and that you think is well produced/mixed/mastered. Also as Dad said it's not a constant A/B between the reference track and yours. The way I would work is to listen to your reference track a couple of times and then start working on yours. When you think your are getting close to your final version, have another listen to your reference track, so you can hear what more you need to do.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wishface said:

Well, i'd like to be the mastering engineer who knows what they are doing. Not least of all because...money!

 

I don't think what I do is terrible sounding, but I am always looking to improve. if it's a question of getting beyond stock or free plug ins, well that's too bad.

 

Part of it is that I use a lot of low fi sounds

 

At this point the most useful thing you can do is not to get bogged down with specific plug-ins. In fact as a starting point stick with the plug-ins that came free with your DAW and get to know how they work and what they do to sound of the track inside out.

 

It might also be worth getting one of your songs professionally mastered to a standard you like, and then try and replicate that sound yourself. While you are unlikely to be able to copy and paste settings from one song to another with no further tweaking necessary, it should get you much closer to th required end result. 

 

The other thing you need to do is to know the sound of your monitoring system and listening environment inside out. Most people recording at home, will either be sharing the space with other living requirements, or if they do have a dedicated space for it, it will be too much small compared with a professional facility, and the overall sound will be compromised as a result. That's why it is important that you know how your space sounds. Spend time playing other people's music through your system so you are completely familiar with it's strengths and weaknesses. In the days when I was still recording at home, I discovered that my monitoring system had a peak at the frequencies that enhanced the sound of our vocalists voice, and therefore what sounded right on my system would result in the vocals sounding too quiet or indistinct on almost anything else. Therefore I had to learn to over-emphasise the vocals when mixing/mastering  in order to get the right sound and balance. That's something you will only discover when you are completely familiar with how your speakers/room sound.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wishface said:

I just use headphones. I don't have monitors or even regular speakers, which I doubt would be idea.

 

For now that will have to do

 

Even more important then, that you know exactly how other music sounds through these headphones. Spend plenty of time listening to stuff you like on them. That will enable you to make more informed opinions about how your music sounds in relation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wishface said:

I just use headphones. I don't have monitors or even regular speakers, which I doubt would be idea.

 

For now that will have to do

 

Nothing wrong with headphones. Listen to your 'target' reference songs through them, so as to have an even base for judgement, though.
How about an experiment..? Using one of your 'finished' compositions, add, in Reaper, the Cockos 'RealComp' compressor plug-in to the Master track. Choose, as a preset, the 'stock - Master Bus NY Comp'. Leave its default settings, and listen to your track, turning the plug-in on and off. Which sounds better to you, 'Comp in' or 'Comp out'..? Be aware that many Fx have an effect on the volume, so try to get the levels between the two to be identical, or close, using the 'Wet' and 'Dry' cursors. Try turning the 'Wet' down to -inf, and bring it back up, listening to its effect. Is there a 'sweet spot' where it sounds best to you..? Do you prefer it completely 'Dry'..? Try it and see what happens..? B|

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when you say 'while', I'd say rather in alternance, not necessarilly in the same session. BRX used the expression 'A/B' above, which is where one switches between two sounds, to compare them. We'd do this, for instance, in a HiFi shop, to compare pairs of speakers. That's not what we're doing with this reference song. We're not trying to get an exact copy of the reference, simply having in mind what it sounded like as we remember it. I've listen to Bowie's 'Five Years' I don't know how many times, and when I hear certain gutar players, it brings Ronson to mind. I also have The Doors 'Strange Days' in my memory; I can jear Robby Krieger's style in some players. If I'm recording guitar, I might want to sound like one of those (in reality, I'd favour more Jerry Garcia, the way I play, but still...). A good reference for me would be much of the work of JJ Cale, or early Fairport Convention. Your models will be different.
Let's simplify this. What music (group, album, genre...) do you appreciate most..? Do any of them inspire the music you're composing..? Try to imagine what makes your favourite models sound the way they do, compared to your tracks..? Is there lots of delay on the vocals, or rather dry..? Any backing vocals..? Are the drums in the foreground, or in retreat..? A pounding bass, or more subtle..? How are the dynamics..? Constant barrage, wall of sound, or an ebb and flow..? Do all the instruments and voices blend together, or are they distinctly separate..? Lots of hard panning (left/right...)..? Does it seem as if they're on a stage in front of you, or all around the room..? Were they recorded in a cave or tunnel, or an open field..? All of these, and much more, is what one has in mind when aiming for a sound. There's little chance of actually imitating any of the models, and we're not trying to copy anyway; simply aiming to get a result that satisfies.
Any help, or am I just confusing things further..? :/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ricky 4000 said:

Have you seen this guy's videos 👍?

 

Not a fan, to be honest. I doubt that the µ-touches he's playing with come across through headsets, or even many monitors. I certainly would not consider 'tweaking' below 20Hz. That's daft, to me. I would have preferred to hear a 'before/after' with broad brushstokes. That, to me, is not 'mastering' as I know it. Never mind; maybe it's just me.

 

I've just had a quick glance at what U-tube offers, when I search for 'mastering home studio'. I didn't scroll down through them all, but the few I looked at seemed to be basically 'click-bait', each shouting louder than the next with the 'secrets' that the 'pros' don't want you to know, whilst proning whatever plug-in they're pluggin'. I couldn't find anything that goes through the 101 basic principles in any coherent fashion. Maybe I should have looked further..? Good luck in 'taking your mix to the next level' by following all of these 'experts'. I would say that it's better to go slowly on your own, listen, and do baby steps, maybe with a 'throw-away' track, just to hear what each thing does. Experiment; the answer's a lemon: suck it and see. B|

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

Not a fan, to be honest.

 

I dunno, Daddy. I've never mastered anything in my life.

 

I linked to Warren Huart as he is a pucker producer / engineer and mix engineer.

 

And if you have a look, he interviews some top mastering engineers on his YT channel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...