Mastering A Mastered Track?

[LilPatBeatz]

Ok I know this is a weird question but how would you go about mastering a mastered track? I'm working on a mixtape and some of the instrumentals used are already mastered. What I have been doing is just turning the instrumental down, laying down the vocals, and mastering the whole track. It's been working alright but I just want to know if there is a better way to do it, like maybe master the vocals then put them on the mastered beat?

I appreciate any answers you guys can give me

Thanks,
Lil Pat

 

[ALJLProductions]

I would master the vocals seperate from the instrumental to get them in their own space, and then master the two as a whole... Just a thought.. Good luck!

 

[Morning_Star]

Just buss all the vocals to a stereo channel and throw a limiter on it. Then adjust the beat volume, limiter threshold, and limiter output until they match.

 

[LostProfit]

depends on the ambience/dynamic/feel of the vocals.

People re-master all the time.

I would approach it like a normal mix, whether you crop or touch up the vocals at all and then see what you have, see what is working or not. If you have the master, its only somebody else's idea of perfection.

 

[dvyce]

Ok I know this is a weird question but how would you go about mastering a mastered track? I'm working on a mixtape and some of the instrumentals used are already mastered. What I have been doing is just turning the instrumental down, laying down the vocals, and mastering the whole track. It's been working alright but I just want to know if there is a better way to do it, like maybe master the vocals then put them on the mastered beat?

I appreciate any answers you guys can give me

Thanks,
Lil Pat

There is no better way. That is how you do it.

...and, of course, you need to mix the vocals in with the backing track first... not just lay them done and be done with it...

Ideally, the instrumental would not have been "mastered" since "mastering" is the final step prior to manufacturing. Once the track is "mastered" it is done... you don't touch it anymore...

(Although, the "mastering" that was likely done to the instrumentals you are talking about probably just means a "compressed to make them louder" type thing was done... but regardless...)

 

[dvyce]

I would master the vocals seperate from the instrumental to get them in their own space, and then master the two as a whole... Just a thought.. Good luck!

This makes no sense.

First of all, mastering is something done to a final mix... not a single element...

Second, if all you have is a vocal, then you can EQ it, compress it, do whatever you want to it... but all you are doing is included as part of "mixing"...

"Mastering" and "mixing" use the same tools... the only difference is that "mastering" is done to a FINAL MIX while "mixing" is done with the INDIVIDUAL TRACKS.

 

[dvyce]

Just buss all the vocals to a stereo channel and throw a limiter on it. Then adjust the beat volume, limiter threshold, and limiter output until they match.

...there is no way to determining if a "limiter" should be on the the overall vocal mix without being in his sequence, but....

aside from that...

...if you are saying "mix the vocals to the backing track"...

...then, yes...

(and now that there is a new "final mix" the track would need to be mastered again.)


note: I am assuming we are actually talking about real true "mastering"... but if you are just talking about using some kind of "louderizer", then do whatever... although, you will need to run your track through your "loudinator" again since you brought the level down to mix the vocals in.

 

[dvyce]

depends on the ambience/dynamic/feel of the vocals.

People re-master all the time.

I would approach it like a normal mix, whether you crop or touch up the vocals at all and then see what you have, see what is working or not. If you have the master, its only somebody else's idea of perfection.

but that is not what it means when people talk about "re-mastering"...

"Re-mastering" refers to going back to the original UNMASTERED final mix and "RE-mastering" it by the current standards (or for whatever reason)...

What is being talked about in this thread is "mastering over an already mastered track"... very different...

 

[Red Scare]

misleading info all around.....

-1-

 

[LostProfit]

"Re-mastering" refers to going back to the original UNMASTERED final mix

It it wasn't mastered then you wouldn't be able to RE-MASTER it

just semantics anyway...or tautology

 

[Morning_Star]

...there is no way to determining if a "limiter" should be on the the overall vocal mix without being in his sequence, but....

aside from that...

...if you are saying "mix the vocals to the backing track"...

...then, yes...

(and now that there is a new "final mix" the track would need to be mastered again.)


note: I am assuming we are actually talking about real true "mastering"... but if you are just talking about using some kind of "louderizer", then do whatever... although, you will need to run your track through your "loudinator" again since you brought the level down to mix the vocals in.

Look there is no "good" way to do this at all. The way I mentioned works very very well though. You don't want to add any compression to the instrumental because it's already squashed to hell and back. The ideal thing to do is match the compression that is already on the beat with the compression you put on the vocals so it sounds like it was compressed together.

The people here are purely speculating my method doesn't work because it they had tried it they would know it does, because it does in fact work. It's the best way to compress the vocals enough to cut the mix but not destroy the dynamics of the instrumental.

The only mastering that should be done on the final track is maybe eq. No compression. It's already hot as it needs to be.

 

[Morning_Star]

depends on the ambience/dynamic/feel of the vocals.

People re-master all the time.

I would approach it like a normal mix, whether you crop or touch up the vocals at all and then see what you have, see what is working or not. If you have the master, its only somebody else's idea of perfection.

People may re-master all the time but they don't start with something that is already mastered. They start from the beginning and master it again.

 

[sleepy]

It it wasn't mastered then you wouldn't be able to RE-MASTER it

just semantics anyway...or tautology

In a sense that's true but you always go back to the source. For Disney movies that are "digitally remastered" that usually means they go back to the source, not an old VHS tape someone had laying around.

So it goes source->original master, or source->remaster and not source->master->remaster.

 

[DJ Trigonometry]

The first 2 replies you got were the best answers. If the instrumental is already mastered then why touch it. You're prolly gonna end up doing more harm to it anyways seeing as your asking this question.

Question: Lets say we have a track thats been mastered. When an artist decides to release the instrumental.. do they just mute the vocal track and master the beat with the same exact chain they used for the track?

 

[Morning_Star]

Question: Lets say we have a track thats been mastered. When an artist decides to release the instrumental.. do they just mute the vocal track and master the beat with the same exact chain they used for the track?

Usually. Sometimes small adjustments are made.

 

[dvyce]

It it wasn't mastered then you wouldn't be able to RE-MASTER it

just semantics anyway...or tautology

In this scenario here, it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics... And certainly not tautology...

Obviously, to remaster something, there must have been some prior master that you wanted to change...

But, unlike what was being talked about here, you do not remaster over a previously mastered track... That is not what remastering is.

Remastering is exactly like mastering... Except it is a *redo*... not a *do no top of*...


It s like you got a track mastered and you are not happy with it, so you give the unmastered track to a different engineer and have them remaster it since the first version sucked.

Think of it this way: You are in school. You have to write an essay for your class about what you did over summer vacation. But you write an essay about how much you like the Spongebob Squarepants. The teacher says to you "your essay is off topic and you need to REWRITE it"...

Does that mean:

a. You take the essay you already wrote and trace over all those words you previously wrote on the page?

Or...

b. You get a new piece of paper and write a new essay about your summer?


(this is not a very difficult concept, people)

 

[LostProfit]

"your essay is off topic and you need to REWRITE it"...

Does that mean:

a. You take the essay you already wrote and trace over all those words you previously wrote on the page?

Or...

b. You get a new piece of paper and write a new essay about your summer?

Thats a dreadful analogy.

the definitive, finished copy is a 'master' copy.

You are going to be working with something that has already taken place and has been manufactured.

The word master in the case of a re-mastering process is entirely prone to mishaps, semantics and malapropism.

The only thing permanent in your description was perhaps the idea or the brain of the person re-doing the essay, in which case, you cannot escape your own mind and start in another vessel, you are still bound to the process of the original doing.

Whether you are going to use the same studio with exactly the same settings saved or not, you are mastering something that had been mastered. What if you never master anything...or oppositely if you finish a mastering session before the ME gets to the building...?

semantics.

 

[dvyce]

Thats a dreadful analogy.

(I actually meant to say "write another essay over the previous one, not "track over it"... anyway...)


It is a very good analogy...

the definitive, finished copy is a 'master' copy.

Yes, a "master" copy... not a "mastered" copy...

there is a very simple and distinct difference between:

1. a "master" copy (noun)

2. to "master" a song (verb)

You are going to be working with something that has already taken place and has been manufactured.

When you are doing a "re-master" you are not working with something that has been manufactured.

The standard definition of a "re-mastered" album/track is: you go back to the original clean unmastered master and master it again.


The OP (and other people here) are saying "what do you mean you shouldn't master over a mastered copy? people re-master all the time!"...

...and those people do not understand the concept of "re-mastering".

There is absolutely no confusion about this in the actual music business.

The word master in the case of a re-mastering process is entirely prone to mishaps, semantics and malapropism.

the only way there would be any mistake is if you left a song labeled "master copy" laying around out of context...

...then it may be confusing as to whether it is the "master" from the mix, or the "master" for manufacture...

But in the case of a "re-mastering" process, the word "master" is not confusing... "re-mastering" is expected to be done on a clean unmastered final mix.

...and when somebody would "master" over a previously "mastered" track, it would fall under the category of "I got this track mastered and it sounds like crap. I no longer have the original unmastered version. Do you think you can do anything to help it?"

The only thing permanent in your description was perhaps the idea or the brain of the person re-doing the essay, in which case, you cannot escape your own mind and start in another vessel, you are still bound to the process of the original doing.

I do not even know what you are trying to say here...

Let me explain my analogy:

The *piece of paper* = the *unmastered track*
The *essay* = "mastering"


You *write your essay on the blank piece of paper*, much in the same way as you *apply your mastering processing to the unmastered track*...


When you *re-write your essay*, you go back to a blank piece of paper and start over... this is done much in the same way as when you *re-master a track*, you go back to the original unmastered version to apply new processing.


What you do *not* do when you re-write your essay is *physically write your new essay directly on top of your previous essay*... much in the same way that when you *re-master* a track, you do not *master again on top of the previous mastering job*...

Whether you are going to use the same studio with exactly the same settings saved or not

completely irrelevant and unrelated to anything I am talking about...

you are mastering something that had been mastered.

1. yes, you are mastering something that had been mastered

2. but it is irrelevant to the "re-mastering" process because you are going back to the original unmastered version to *master it again*...

you are RE-mastering...

Not mastering ON TOP OF the previously mastered version.

What if you never master anything

Then it hasn't been mastered.

or oppositely if you finish a mastering session before the ME gets to the building...?

I do not know how you would finish a mastering session before the ME arrives (since it is his job to master the music), but if you do, I would tell the ME to go home because you mastered it without him.

What are you trying to say here?

Are you trying to say that you are going to your mastering session but you had somebody else master it earlier?

If so, your ME would say "If you already had it mastered, what do you want me to do? You want me to re-master it? OK, give me the original unmastered mixes."

semantics.

The concept of a "re-master" is surely understood among professionals in the music industry.

 

[LilPatBeatz]

It's a lot of info in here but I'm kind of confused because it's two different answers going around. Some of you are saying, limit the vocals then add them to the already mastered instrumental; then some of you are saying, do like I have been doing and turn the beat down, add the vocals, then master the whole mix like it was just a Final Mix. I'm not trying to add fuel to the debate already going on in here, I just want to know which way is the most professional.

Lil Pat

 

[LostProfit]

The confusion is in the adverbial boundings of the phrase. To master soemthing after it has been mastered is an imposition of an adverbial clause.

There is no confusion about the mixing process, in fact you should mix as normal.

but please don't master it again because that is clearly impossible lol


..dvyce and others, including myself, were just arguing over the syntactic values of the language used.