Mastering. Is their an actual process?

Norge N/A

New member
So ive mastered a few tracks myself, and i noticed in some vids producers say theirs a certain way to master as in compression being last and loudness before, i usually eq, loudness and then compress and just a bunch of shit and its confusing me, is their an actual way of mastering and if possible any tips for me since i wanna know how to master my tracks myself?
 
Last edited:
I'm no pro but a professional mastering engineer has $40,000 monitors and a treated room. You cant just get a pair of HS8's and Izotope ozone and call yourself a mastering engineer. Its a whole different skill set than producing. But as a starter Izotope Ozone works and the manual has good info.
 
I use Ozone, my strategy that works pretty well.
1/ Make sure the track is well mixed so that it sounds good even without mastering
2/ EQ
3/ Multiband compression
4/ Exciter (usually very light, sometimes none, a little tube maybe)
5/ Stereo enhancer (sometimes none)
6/ Light Reverb. If my track already has some, extremely light to see if it improves cohesion, or none
7/ Maximiser
8/ I never use the output EQ.

I was able to get tracks on TV with this strategy, so it works.
 
Leave the loudness till the very end of the mastering chain. The only time in mastering you want to get a louder signal is when everything is balanced and even. This is because you won't be able to get your track to the appropriate loudness as certain unbalanced frequencies will cause your mix to distort sooner than it has to.
 
you will notice that the only people that can hear the intricate details of a mastering engineer is a mastering engineer because they have trained their ears to hear certain frequencies but the normal, everyday people that you may be appealing to have no idea and could care less about all that. I found this very interesting through out the years. Same for mixing. People can't tell if you mixed over an MP3, yea, I would frown upon it but if you ask average Joe - they don't have a clue.
 
When I'm mastering my own mixes, it's typically compression, then parallel compression, then EQ (crazy subtle), and then a limiter or clipper. If I'm mastering other people's stuff, then I might have to start with an EQ for broad shaping or surgery. Or I might have to start with a dynamic EQ if the mix is really screwed up to infinity, or possibly after the compression. There's really no rules, you do whatever you need to do. The only rule I'd say is that you want your limiter or clipper last.
 
if it's my own shit...

1. eq (bugger all)
2. Linear multiband compression.
3. eq (brighten highs and boost low a tiny bit)
4. Tape Saturation (gentle Compression)
5. Limiter (That barely attenuates to keep dynamics)

I prefer a bit less volume that when you turn it up it punches
 
There is no set way of eq'ing a track without hearing or referencing it first. The only rules i have, is the limiter comes last with the ceiling set at -0.3 (that number can be whatever you want just dont set at 0.0 because certain systems clip at 0.0).
Izotope is probably the best tool out there for learning certain process' but can be confusing,i dont use every aspect of ozone on every track, but sometimes i do, get to know the plug in inside out.
Replacing process that ozone does, such as using an external eq/compressor will come with practice. Good luck its a neverending learning curve!
 
That changes from mix to mix but the general idea is
EQ
Compression(or not)
Limiting

In no specific order. As with every protocol, deviance can also produce more satisfying results e.g. by adding
saturation
Transient Processors
Using digital clipping instead of regular 'transparent' brick wall limiting
Final Stereo Imaging
Delay, Reverb
even modulatory FX. Depends.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top