| Author
|
digital Mastering
|
ZilDoggo
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
663
Posted : Dec 28, 2004 01:15
|
"lets face it - not all of us can afford to have every track mastered profesionally"
simon posford can!! 
anyway, those costs are usually payed for by the label you will be releasing on,
if you need a master for personal use then well, you can use anything you can come up with
so i totaly agree with:
"it would be nice to be able to do a "acceptable" mastering job, so you can play your tracks at a club/party whatever.
one time i finished a track and played it less than 2 hours later at a party.
so now that we all agree (im sure) that mastering is better done by a pro - its safe to say that its OK to try it yourself too........and discuss some techniques. "
but (from my experience) this can be pretty difficult to do in a good way.,
i always end up making something hat sounds a lot different from the original tune
so maybe i'm not saying you shouldnt do it yourself.,
just that you shouldnt try it first time and think that you are going to have a maastered cd
nothing wrong with a bit of mastering when you want to play it on a set .,
"T-racks 24.
this is a mastering program, but ive never liked it."
me neither. might be good for rock-ish material but imho not so wunderfull for psy .,
"izotope ozone is another similar program with a different interface (t-racks has a analogue look)
ive seen this and played with it, but nothing serious.
..it was..........ok, nothing special"
havent mastered with it yet and dont like it as a package., but the eq is realy good as a channel eq and some other parts of it are also cool to use as standalone effects.
but as a mastering 'suite' it is also imo nothing special.,
"master X5 is a powercore plugin, and apparently a replica of the finalizer.
i never tried this but heard good things about it.
anyone using this? "
nope., sorry.,
"so for example you seperate you kick+bass and complress/eq that group.
the process your hi hats in another group.
loops in another group.
maybe more groups for lets say low freq fx, and another for mid/high freq fx. "
this is a very good MIXING techique,
and if you apply compression at this stage you will have much more 'concrete' groups so mixing is a little different (and easier maybe)
good thing about this technique is that you will need much less compression at the end (at mastering).
i'm starting to think that compression is good at every stage of mixing
just use it conservatively on every channel.,
than a bit more robuust on the groups,
and then some more on the outputs.,
not sure it will hold up in many situations but it looks good for now
greets
aka., |
|
|
ZilDoggo
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
663
Posted : Dec 28, 2004 01:23
|
[quote]On 2004-12-27 03:59, Darius wrote:
"I not agree with the ideea that the mastering should be done by a profi sound engineering. Sometimes the track loose his original feeling and it sounds more rigid when it is mastered by somebody else than the artist. "
yeah., that can be true.,
you, as an artist, should be at least involved in the process ,.
best thing is to sit next to the engineer.
" Just imagine that you are a painter and you give your paintings to be finalized by somebody else. Be serious, this is not art anymore."
actually, , this is EXACTLY how many masterworks have been done!
most big artists from the history had apprentices.
young boys who were learning from the masters.
so, often, the masters would sketch a painting, then let the apprentice do the actual painting and in the end the master puts his signature., !!!
check it if you dont belive me
" Immagine "Mona Lisa" finished by other painter than "Leonardo Da Vinci".
well, i'm not sure about the mona lisa, but it realy happenend
" Be serrious man ! If you don't have all this, especially the "incredible ears" than you are not an artist. "
i know a lot of releasing artists that have shitty ears. and they still make good music.,
" Just like "The_Guardians_Of_Truth" wroted: you ar just an amatour playing some strange sounds on soft synths, just like a child."
who was he talking about?
" Not everyone who just released 1-2 tracks on some compilations is an artist."
that's true.
" Real artists do their own mastering even if they don't have profi equipment."
hmm., dont think THAT is true,.
" Take for example Atma & R'tur album. It was made on a Pc 500mhz, 64SD Ram, Creative live audiocard and it was mastered on home listening spekers not studio monitors.No 24bit and no 96 or 48khz quality.
Well this album sounds better than 80 % of the psytrance albums on the market. "
i havent heared it.,
but i could agree with you that sound quality is not the same thing as good music "
But they are real artists...they have more than 10 years of trance music behind and they are proffesional musicians in real life.
If you find it, get it ! You will see the difference! "
ok,,. |
|
|
|
Sith Records
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
4
Posted : Dec 28, 2004 04:21
|
I dunno much about music creation but i will try make some light this discution:
1)everyone may have right from his point of view.
I agree with the ideea that an artist should try to make his work to the end but this is not a must !
The mastering or mixing whatever you guys call it can be done by a studio engineering as well.
2)It is hard to compare painting with music those are two differents kinds of art.
3)many so called artists who made realised 1-2 songs are far to be real artists. That's also true.
4)About "Atma's" album there i agree with Darius. This album called "The Guardians Of Truth" it was supposed to be released at our label and i can say that this is a masterpiece from all points as view. Unfortunatly for us he found a better deal with Dreamtime Rec. and it will be out in 2005.
5) I am not shure if this album was made only on a Pc because Atma, use a lot of analog gear.Maybe he just made the mastering on PC. I know for shure that he did electronic music and film music in the past and he made also remixes for JM Jarre and Jhon Williams (Star wars theme)
6) I'ma asking myself where did "Darius" listen it bacouse it is unrealised yet, and i know that Atma never spread his music ???
Maybe you have listen the old album made 4-5 years ago with R'tur at Roton Rec ??
Boom !
|
|
|
|
Pavel
Troll
Started Topics :
313
Posts :
8649
Posted : Dec 28, 2004 08:51
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-12-27 11:46, Darius wrote:
There are a lot of other examples: Juno reactors - Shango. Most of the traxx from this album are not even mastered, just recorded live.
|
|
Say what? Offcourse it was mastered.
Here it's written all over the cover: Mastered by Kevin Metcalfe at the Sound Masters.
Where did u get the silliest idea that Shango wasn't mastered?
 Everyone in the world is doing something without me |
|
|
|
undertones
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
25
Posts :
165
Posted : Dec 28, 2004 23:02
|
hi!
my little two bit....
mastering as i see it is a process of refinment of a final mix, to match a certain standard/feel of the comilation/album to which the track belongs. this would include overall rms levels as well as sound quality/overall texture.
it could be done in any environment, as long as the whole album is mastered in that environment...though i would say that certain standards are required to achieve a certain degree of accuracy.
for mastering, one generally uses two pieces of gear...an eq and a compressor( many people use multiband compressor so that they can treat bass mids and highs separately).
the idea of using the eq is to try and get the texture of all the tracks in the album the same, with as much accuracy as possible. for this, one would require accurate monitoring facilities,( a good pair of headphones is better than good monitors but in a badly resonating room, i should think?). using a spectrometer would give a good idea of frquencies that are there in the track and how much...
the idea of using compressor is to get the levelling and tightness of tracks right....it shouldnt be that the first track sounds fine, but then for the next track, you have to increase the volume by a lot to just hear the track...
just a note...one has to be very careful while dealing with low end...whether eq or compressing...there are lots of things happening at the low end that go unnoticed unless heard very carefully,preferably in a flat environment...phasing, resonances, wrong impression about energy levels, etc.
limiting...i almost forgot...get the peaks right!
could use an exciter in the end for a little sparkle of highs content. aural exciter, etc...
if you lack outboard gear, use waves plugins...
tc finalizer if you ask me gives a very mettalic output...not enough analog warmth...
and then again, analog mastering equipment cost more than most of us (at least me!)can afford...
though focusrite and eventide make good stuff.
t racks...if it works for you, great! didnt work for me though...
final word...if ur working on good final settings for ur song, i would call it finalising...mastering technically is a process that would apply to a compilation/album as a whole.
hope this helps! great topic! i would love to know what simon posford has to say on mastering...wish he would post his tricks n all once in a while...sigh...wishful thinking!
yebo! |
|
|
|
Katapult
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
27
Posted : Jan 2, 2005 09:10
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-12-27 03:59, Darius wrote:
I not agree with the ideea that the mastering should be done by a profi sound engineering. Sometimes the track loose his original feeling and it sounds more rigid when it is mastered by somebody else than the artist.
|
|
If it does, then it was a really bad mastering job and I would bring the track(s) back to the engineer to fix.
Quote:
| Real artists do their own mastering even if they don't have profi equipment.
|
|
Are you kidding? There are very few that master their own stuff when you look at music in general. And I would be willing to guess that the number one reason that the artists that do master their own stuff is the cost.
I read something the other day that went something like this:
If you spend all your time in the mixdown making the track sound just how you want it to sound, then how can you master it to make it sound better? PAR-2 Productions - PAR2, Jikkenteki, Katapult www.par-2.com |
|
|
|
koalakube
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
48
Posts :
437
Posted : Jan 2, 2005 14:51
|
Mastering is almost an art.
;-)
|
|
|
|
gill
Melorix
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
628
Posted : Jan 2, 2005 16:25
|
digital mastering ...
do you have finalize it with a good compressor? things like a c4 from waves
or is c1 from waves enough?
what about those peaks?
what can you do exactly to get the same soundvolume without losing anything?
allost all my tracks are looking the first few minutes pretty quiet, than more noizes come in and everything looks louder ...
I looked in cooledit
If I compare it with good productions released (u know what I mean)
they look so flat ...
How can I do that?
is that you're mastering?
|
|
|
|
Jikkenteki
Jikkenteki
Started Topics :
20
Posts :
356
Posted : Jan 2, 2005 17:34
|
The reason a lot of "professional" productions look so flat recently is that they are squashed to hell via compression/limiting and are thus unnaturally flat (although loud, I will give them that). Despite what a lot of people here might say, not every track should be the same volume in an album and ideally the flow of the piece as a whole should dictate how a particular track will be mastered in regards to volume levels and such. Waves plug-ins seem to be the rage here as of late, but there are many different ways to master and many different tools available (if you have enough money that is) and not every piece of music calls for the same tools.
As for tracks starting off quietly and slowly getting louder as the part pile up, this is a fairly common problem for artists (or "producers" to misuse the term as is done in most of the electronic dance music world) and has nothing really to do with mastering, but is a problem in the actual creation and mixing stage of a track. A lot of the "volume problem" comes from having all your synths, drums etc simply use almost all of the frequency range available to them, thus the end up fighting with each other for volume and as more parts pile on, the louder it gets. If you haven't read it already, I'd suggest reading this tutorial for a great overview on the topic.
http://www.dnbscene.com/articles.php?mode=display&id=79
New Album: Jikkenteki - Flights Of Infinity
Available for free at http://www.ektoplazm.com/free-music/jikkenteki-flights-of-infinity/
PAR-2 Productions http://www.par-2.com |
|
|
|
gill
Melorix
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
628
Posted : Jan 2, 2005 18:08
|
so I have to fill in every freq?
It doesn't matter if I put a waves as final compressor?
thanks for the advice and the website  |
|
|
|
Katapult
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
27
Posted : Jan 2, 2005 23:30
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-01-02 18:08, gill wrote:
so I have to fill in every freq?
It doesn't matter if I put a waves as final compressor?
|
|
You are talking about music, and music is an art. You don't HAVE to do anything. The tutorial should only be a guideline to think about when you are making music. It is not meant to hinder creating new ideas. If the track doesn't call for a part, don't force something in there just because you read something saying that all music needs this.
If you put compression on the final mix (or on any part for that matter) it will make a difference to the part being compressed. The question that needs to be asked though is does it make a difference for the better or for the worse? All compression is not good.
PAR-2 Productions - PAR2, Jikkenteki, Katapult www.par-2.com |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Jan 3, 2005 06:33
|
If you leave an empty frequency in your track (a mixdown mistake), then no matter what form of mastering, the "best" you can hope to get in that frequency is the effects of other sounds getting distorted, which in most cases sounds just plainly worse (just like having one frequency in the track too strong... only you can not correct it).
About "real" artists needing good ears, Ludwig Van was deaf. I think that he counts as a "real" artist.
Mastering is giving an album a 'uniform' feel. Sure, you can do rough mastering at home, but there are people that work on this for years, know exactly what needs to be done, have the perfect setup (and yes, for mastering you do need good acoustics, expensive monitors and some good headphones will also help). Their job is to make sure that the tracks have more or less the same volumes for certain frequency ranges, and nearly the exact same average volume for the peak of each track. With most albums nowadays, you can see how after mastering - the kick sits at a steady 0db, even without any other element playing with it. Don't do this at home boys and girls.
Home mastering will probably sound worse than mastering done by someone who has been doing this for a living for the past few years - but if you want to play your music at a party, you will need to either:
A) play all the mastered tracks at a lower volume than yours, as modern mastering is all about compressing the f*ck out of everything as much as possible without mucking up the clarity (giving a high average volume).
B) Apply your own tools at home.
To be honest, you can't hear 90% of the touches in mastering on PA - the music is split into bands each one is limited in hardware as to not burn parts of the speakers with those peaks. Even the best soundman will color the sound a bit for fear of a stupid DJ playing each track louder than the one before until something burns and things start to sound like shit. This is unavoidable (and if you follow the fourier transform of a sound divided into 3-4 frequency ranges, you may very well get peaks in at least one of those ranges nearly constantly, the higher frequencies being more susceptible to this - tweaters are usually the quickest part to die in a sound system because of this mathematical anecdote).
Personally, if the mix doesn't sound loud enough to you, you can always raise the volume. If you don't think it sounds perfect, change it. People seem to look for ways to complicate things.
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
gill
Melorix
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
628
Posted : Jan 3, 2005 12:33
|
|
thanks! |
|
|
|
|
