mastering in a box or not?

P

prodeucer

New member
from what I understand mastering is really just EQ and Compression. There may be another one that I forgot, so it's generally 3 things then?


I do have the Finalizer 96K but I may be looking in to getting those single units. Should I get an EQ box or a compression or both? Should I EQ first then compress or it doesn't matter?
 
prodeucer said:
from what I understand mastering is really just EQ and Compression. There may be another one that I forgot, so it's generally 3 things then?


I do have the Finalizer 96K but I may be looking in to getting those single units. Should I get an EQ box or a compression or both? Should I EQ first then compress or it doesn't matter?
Click to expand...

never undermine what mastering "really" is. If it's your track please do not master it, you are biased on what it should sound like it, and what will you fix if you already mixed it.

A true mastering engineering enjoys the challenge of making audio sound as good as possible. With the right frequency spectrum in balance and all sonic erroring in check. It takes years to get your ears in check for this, and only comes better with experience, they have the proper studio and big enough hardware to handle such tasks.

If on the flipside you are not a producer and just wish to get into mastering, I would strongly advise to begin apprenticing somewhere with a master engineer with an adequate studio and a very adequate ear
 
There's still plenty of people doing it themselves. That not have the ambition to pay big bucks straight off while they're not making any money on their productions. There are some easy tools that can help you. But as said above, for a professional track you need to have someone do it that has the know how and the hardware.
Look for free alternatives of Izone izotope. There's some topics on FP for that as well.
 
I get what you're saying which is why i think everyone gets their mastering from Andy Wallace or Bob Ludwig or someone else. LOL.

Isn't the best way of gaining experience is to keep doing it til your ears become "good"? Would playing around with commercially released CDs and run it to some EQ or compression make a good training? Or not? Considering these are already mastered releases?

Wapiti said:
never undermine what mastering "really" is. If it's your track please do not master it, you are biased on what it should sound like it, and what will you fix if you already mixed it.

A true mastering engineering enjoys the challenge of making audio sound as good as possible. With the right frequency spectrum in balance and all sonic erroring in check. It takes years to get your ears in check for this, and only comes better with experience, they have the proper studio and big enough hardware to handle such tasks.

If on the flipside you are not a producer and just wish to get into mastering, I would strongly advise to begin apprenticing somewhere with a master engineer with an adequate studio and a very adequate ear
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So I guess it's only 2 procedures then? I thought there was another one I can't think of...Limiter?

Some records sound pleasing to the ears you want to keep playing it while others give me headache. What effect is responsible for this? I would assume compressor? Something that makes the songs seem "loud" without being "noisy" if that makes sense.

rideforvankay said:
I always EQ before I compress. Any unwanted frequencies will only get magnified when put through compression
Click to expand...
 
prodeucer said:
I get what you're saying which is why i think everyone gets their mastering from Andy Wallace or Bob Ludwig or someone else. LOL.

Isn't the best way of gaining experience is to keep doing it til your ears become "good"? Would playing around with commercially released CDs and run it to some EQ or compression make a good training? Or not? Considering these are already mastered releases?
Click to expand...

Don't do that. You can't "de-master" an already mastered track. You won't gain anything by trying to do anything with it.

I've always been a fan of DIY mastering. It's very much so an art, so it is definitely more complicated than just a compressor, EQ, and a limiter. I don't necessarily believe (anymore) that you need to have a mastering engineer master your tracks. It is something that you can learn to do, even without the most expensive gear on the planet.

I think it goes without saying that in order to DIY and become good at mastering, you have to have excellent skills in mixing. Some people claim that the processes are technically the same if you do it yourself, but I think they are definitely different and have clearly defined end and start points.

I'd say it's worth it to try to master your own music. As I always advise, focus solely on mixing techniques first. Your ability to master will come a bit more naturally over time.
 
so is mastering sort of like "mixing" sonics? If that makes sense, not so much mixing the track levels of individual tracks (instruments, vocals, etc.) but the "sonics"?
 
Last edited:
Yea pretty much. It's when you analyze the track as a whole and make small adjustments to make it sound as best as it can on multiple systems.

If you need to make more than like 3 or 4 db changes in EQ, then it'll probably be worth it to go back to fixing your individual sounds.
 
If the box is your computer. YES. If the box is your Monitoring. Then NO!
 
Last edited:
Doesn't really matter analog or digital your ears and skillset is more important. I have personally hated the quality of a fully mixed and mastered record done in a very expensive studio with a lot of analog gear. And I personally enjoy the sound of some digital clipping on drums and how you can add compression and really get them to cut through your mixes. All personal preference
 
rickpolo said:
Doesn't really matter analog or digital your ears and skillset is more important. I have personally hated the quality of a fully mixed and mastered record done in a very expensive studio with a lot of analog gear. And I personally enjoy the sound of some digital clipping on drums and how you can add compression and really get them to cut through your mixes. All personal preference
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be dependent on the engineer and what analog gear exactly they have? You also have the preference of the engineer to take into account and sometimes the studio in combination with the engineer also have their preference. The studio in combination with the engineer(s) could be biased towards certain genres.
 
I never delved into computer music. I'm still a hardware person. Finalizer 96K, still haven't mastered it. While this has everything I need, I still wonder about those high band GRAPHIC equalizers, like 15-band or 31-band GRAPHIC equalizers, are those for live situations and not so much studio? Or could be for anything? It's not just EQ, it's GRAPHIC EQ. I wonder about those...

laurend said:
If the box is your computer. YES. If the box is your Monitoring. Then NO!
Click to expand...
 
Computer and Finalizer are both digital harwares. The Finalizer is only super specialised in processing the audio data resulting from a mix.

About graphic EQ, they're mainly used in live situations because they allow to access very quickly to a particular region of the audio spectrum to kill a feedback problem. In studio, people have time to fine tune a parametric EQ to 1120 Hz, -5.2 dB and 2.3 Q when a live engineer uses the 1 KHz fader set to -7 dB with a constant Q in a second.
 
Last edited:
prodeucer said:
from what I understand mastering is really just EQ and Compression. There may be another one that I forgot, so it's generally 3 things then?


I do have the Finalizer 96K but I may be looking in to getting those single units. Should I get an EQ box or a compression or both? Should I EQ first then compress or it doesn't matter?
Click to expand...

Or even just a maximizer if the mix is really good. :D

90% of the time you'll be fine with some gentle glue compression, gentle EQ and a maximizer.

Spend most of the time mixing since mastering is just a final gloss of your mix.

You can't polish a turd ! :D
 
usually some of the mixing board has some EQ and compression effects built in. Mine has EQ but the compressor exist when you track (not sure if that is enough though considering it may be needed during mixdown). Those multitracks have that option. Maybe it's for EQing or compressing individual tracks while tracking. Even the whole tracks can be Eq'ed as a whole depending on what gear you're using. Not sure if the additional EQ and compression from an actual external mastering equipment would still be necessary then unless one is simply being traditional and following protocols. LOL.

So a good mix may require no mastering, but how do you get it to commercial quality? Is it a maximizer? Is this why some shit commercial rap or pop albums sound as if really "pro" but if you listen to it closely, it's actually poorly tracked or mixed, it just sounds like a "finished" product because it's loud ("maximized") and "fresh" ("polished" turd). What make this such a "finish product"? Maximizer? Since I'm not sure how an EQ or compression could come to the rescue if the final product was poorly tracked or mixed to begin with. I think a Maximizer a tleast would make the whole album "jump' in front of you.

The BBE company seem to specialize in Maximizer products. I'd have to look into these. Would an Exciter be synonymous with a Maximizer? Seems like it.
 
Last edited:
Regarding BBE Maximizer products:

SM500, 882i, 282i all share the same sound engine, so I think they are the same product just different styles and connectivity. I may be interested in the NEWEST 282i series due to its desktop nature plus cheaper too.


http://www.bbesound.com/products/sonic-maximizers/default.aspx

My mixer/multitrack has line in/out and digital out, just wondering which format below should I choose below and why:

The 282i Series is available in three I/O formats:

282iX - Balanced XLR

282iQ - Unbalanced 1/4"

282iR – Unbalanced RCA and 3.5mm mini

Doesn't a line in/out use an RCA cable so I should get the 282iR which uses an unbalanced RCA connectivity right? Or which one of these Maximizers have the more flexible connectivity in case I buy another mixer/multitrack and can adjust accordingly?
 
Last edited:
i actually wrote a free little ebook with regards to mastering in the box. it offers up a kind of template thing people can use, it might help you a little mate :) im brand new to the forum so cant post links but maybe this works if you adjust it slightly:
www(dot) midgeofficial (dot) com/ebooks-and-guides.html

if it doesn't work I do apologise, I need five posts before I can share links!!! my website is midgeoffical dot com though and its under one of the tabs! Might help you out and give you some tips mate :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top