Best ways to master

[matthewm77]

I'm trying to master my track and I've never done it before, I don't have any special plugins for mastering, just the stuff that comes with FL Studio. Where should I start, I've watched some youtube tutorials but I can't tell which ones are reliable since they all do it differently, I used a maximizer and gave it some gain, but thats it so far.

 

[Cayden Carrell]

Best way to master a track is to send it to a mastering engineer.
What you can do yourself early on is tossing a brick wall limiter for entering the loudness war (google this).

But the best thing you can do for your own mix is to mix it properly. Pull down all those faders and start by dragging the kick up till approx -15db and then balance the mix around that. Should give you an overall mix around -6db on the master fader.

That is a good start for either sending it to someone that can master it or to toss some "mastering plugs" on it yourself.

What I would do is to get the money to actually pay a decent (not too expensive) mastering engineer to master your final -6db mix and ask if you can be there when he masters it and to tell you what he does. Be prepared to pay him a lil extra for you sitting there asking some questions.

THAT way, you will learn more than a year on this forum can teach you. And that in 60 minutes.

Best of luck.

PS! If you want, send me the file and I can show you what I can do with it in a 5 min attempt. If you like it I can tell you what I did.

 

[matthewm77]

Best way to master a track is to send it to a mastering engineer.
What you can do yourself early on is tossing a brick wall limiter for entering the loudness war (google this).

But the best thing you can do for your own mix is to mix it properly. Pull down all those faders and start by dragging the kick up till approx -15db and then balance the mix around that. Should give you an overall mix around -6db on the master fader.

That is a good start for either sending it to someone that can master it or to toss some "mastering plugs" on it yourself.

What I would do is to get the money to actually pay a decent (not too expensive) mastering engineer to master your final -6db mix and ask if you can be there when he masters it and to tell you what he does. Be prepared to pay him a lil extra for you sitting there asking some questions.

THAT way, you will learn more than a year on this forum can teach you. And that in 60 minutes.

Best of luck.

I thought about sending it to a mastering engineer but I want to learn how to do it on my own too, this would be helpful to know haha. I have already mixed it and it seems to be well balanced, I could be wrong though. When you say that the overall mix should be -6dB on the master, do you mean that when the song is playing it should peak at -6dB?

 

[Cayden Carrell]

When you say that the overall mix should be -6dB on the master, do you mean that when the song is playing it should peak at -6dB?

Yes.
That is the thumb rule I am aiming for. -6db on the output BEFORE mastering.
A lot of people have different output goals pre-master. Everything from -20db to -2db.
I aim for -6db but often end up around -2db. Which isn´t a problem since I "master" my tracks myself (haven´t really had tracks worth sending to mastering IMO)

But now I do and then I´m gonna go more sharply for -6db. But anything from -10db to -2db is fine I guess.

If you wanna just wanna make it sound loud, make sure yours is not clipping on the output and use some sort of plug-in to boost the perceived loudness. Just don´t overdo it.
You can use your DAWs stock brick wall limiter, or third party plugs like Ozone or similar. I use Sonnox Oxfords Limiter and Inflator. They do a great job raising the perceived loudness to the levels I hear on pro tracks on the radio, iTunes, spottily etc..

Best of luck.

 

[steffeeh]

Mastering is about doing what's necessary to your whole track to enhance/correct it a final time.
If you wonder why people do it differently that's because "what's necessary" is different each time.
If you think your track needs adjustments in the EQ, do it. If it needs M/S processing, then do it. If it even needs a hint of reverb, then do it.

Lastly, in my opinion a reliable mastering tutorial have a professional engineer explaining in it.

Hope that helps.

 

[Jimbo Trashy]

I know a lot of professionals in the industry and almost all of them will tell you that mastering "ruins" the dynamics of a track, which is essentially what gives a song it's "ever changing emotion".

With that being said, if you're hell bent on mastering your song for radio play (since there is really no other reason to do it), then all the industry pros use a program called "Wavelab".

Not saying you have to use that to master, but if you wanna be textbook about it, that is what they use.

 

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

I know a lot of professionals in the industry and almost all of them will tell you that mastering "ruins" the dynamics of a track, which is essentially what gives a song it's "ever changing emotion".

With that being said, if you're hell bent on mastering your song for radio play (since there is really no other reason to do it), then all the industry pros use a program called "Wavelab".

Not saying you have to use that to master, but if you wanna be textbook about it, that is what they use.

Those "professionals" you know have no clue of what they're talking about unless you're misquoting them. And to each their own, not saying any 2 answers will be the same, but from my experience the main software choices among professionals(as in guys mastering material released through labels commercially) for mastering are Samplitude/Sequoia, Cubase/Nuendo(ironically the same company that makes Wavelab), and of course, Pro Tools. Not that it matters since mastering can be done in any program that can load a stereo wav/aif file onto a track where effects can be chained...might as well say any DAW out there, even Garageband.

Wavelab, Toast, CD Architect, Quattro, ect while labeled as "mastering software"(and can be used)are more so for arranging and finalizing a tracklist/order with fadeins/outs, ect. for a CD(which is very much a part of mastering, but not the part being referred to when we're talking about processing individual songs). Most M.E.'s do their work within a DAW with tons of outboard gear for support.

If anything, properly done mastering fixes dynamic issues and makes your song more amazing, not the other way around. Never heard of a "professional" who would disagree with that statement.

 

[Jimbo Trashy]

Those "professionals" you know have no clue of what they're talking about unless you're misquoting them. And to each their own, not saying any 2 answers will be the same, but from my experience the main software choices among professionals(as in guys mastering material released through labels commercially) for mastering are Samplitude/Sequoia, Cubase/Nuendo(ironically the same company that makes Wavelab), and of course, Pro Tools. Not that it matters since mastering can be done in any program that can load a stereo wav/aif file onto a track where effects can be chained...might as well say any DAW out there, even Garageband.

Wavelab, Toast, CD Architect, Quattro, ect while labeled as "mastering software"(and can be used)are more so for arranging and finalizing a tracklist/order with fadeins/outs, ect. for a CD(which is very much a part of mastering, but not the part being referred to when we're talking about processing individual songs). Most M.E.'s do their work within a DAW with tons of outboard gear for support.

If anything, properly done mastering fixes dynamic issues and makes your song more amazing, not the other way around. Never heard of a "professional" who would disagree with that statement.

I wouldn't say they have no clue what they're talking about since they're fairly successful in the industry.

Nonetheless, as I said; I don't think there is any "best software" for anything. But, as I said, most professionals I've known have sworn by Wavelab.

It could be a corporate thing.

For example, I work as a video editor for a major television production conglomerate and all of these huge production houses use AVID because they say there is nothing better for editing television.

You could edit things with Premiere or Final Cut just as good if not better, but because AVID probably pays some of these larger corporations a significant amount of money to use their products it becomes "industry standard".

That is my opinion on Pro Tools as well. I think Logic Pro is superior when it comes to creating sounds from scratch. Pro Tools seems to be ideal for tracking vocals and doing sound for a film.

But, I'm sure someone else will also respond to this and tell me they think the opposite.

So it's all really a preference.

 

[Jimbo Trashy]

Also, if you think mastering fixes dynamic issues, you're mistaken.

Research "The Loudness Wars".

Mastering was what professional producers started doing to start making their music "louder" because the human ear mistakenly identifies "louder" (not clipping) with "better" and thus producers started boosting their levels more and more until now mastering has become a mandatory staple in the commercial music process.

 

[Jimbo Trashy]

To put it into perspective, typically (not always, since original music doesn't truly have rules), but typically, you want your dynamic range to be at a certain range and then expand and come more to life when the hook/choruses start. A roller coaster, if you will.

Not to say, mastering is a guarantee way to screw up your dynamic range, but most people have a tendency to boost everything and therefore it's just one loud cluster**** of loudness.

See: Death Magnetic by Metallica as an example of mastering "ruining" the dynamic range of an album.

 

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

Also, if you think mastering fixes dynamic issues, you're mistaken.

Research "The Loudness Wars".

Mastering was what professional producers started doing to start making their music "louder" because the human ear mistakenly identifies "louder" (not clipping) with "better" and thus producers started boosting their levels more and more until now mastering has become a mandatory staple in the commercial music process.

Absolutely FACTUALLY 100% False. Too much to attempt to correct.

 

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

To put it into perspective, typically (not always, since original music doesn't truly have rules), but typically, you want your dynamic range to be at a certain range and then expand and come more to life when the hook/choruses start. A roller coaster, if you will.

Not to say, mastering is a guarantee way to screw up your dynamic range, but most people have a tendency to boost everything and therefore it's just one loud cluster**** of loudness.

See: Death Magnetic by Metallica as an example of mastering "ruining" the dynamic range of an album.

Your referring to a bad mastering job. Again, mastering is about bringing out the BEST in dynamics when done correctly. That's like me saying "Mixing is about making vocals so loud they pierce through and drown out everything else in the song, so mixing is bad" and basing it on a song where that was done. Please do your research before commenting.

 

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

I wouldn't say they have no clue what they're talking about since they're fairly successful in the industry.

I gave the option of you misquoting them. If they're "fairly successful in the industry", their music is being mastered.

 

[bandcoach]

Also, if you think mastering fixes dynamic issues, you're mistaken.

Research "The Loudness Wars".

Mastering was what professional producers started doing to start making their music "louder" because the human ear mistakenly identifies "louder" (not clipping) with "better" and thus producers started boosting their levels more and more until now mastering has become a mandatory staple in the commercial music process.

so the guys that were operating the cutting lathes to create acetate masters for vinyl pressing in the 1940's are the reason why we have so many bad recordings - who'd-a-thunk-it???? - these guys were the original mastering engineers and nothing could be further from the truth than what you have said

Seriously mastering is the preparation of a track or collection of tracks for distribution and is media specific - you do it differently for vinyl, cd, digital download, broadcast, dvd, etc

You are talking solely about loudness mastering which is a different kettle of fish and should not be lumped in the same bucket with regular mastering.

I would also point out as a perceptual psychologist that you have misstated the human ear preference for loud sounds - it is not true and the link between loudness and mastering and human hearing is more to do with aligning the output of the "mastered" track with the iso-phon (equal-loudness) curves at 100db spl than to do with any so-called preference of the human ear.

Also loudness mastering is about raising the minimum signal level as much as it is about raising the maximum level

 

[Jimbo Trashy]

I gave the option of you misquoting them. If they're "fairly successful in the industry", their music is being mastered.

I never said they don't master their music. As I've said, it's become industry standard to boost everything for radio play. It is not needed and does not make the song any better.

Compression, Limiters and EQs and the right plugins are all you need for a professional sounding mix.

Mastering is not necessary, with the exception being certain genres like Dance, Pop etc.

I have had mastering engineers tell me directly to my face that they charge bands to master their album and all they do is run it through the software program and boost it +2db and send it back and these bands in turn think their album is "mastered".

And why is that all they do? Because again, the perception of it being louder makes most people think its a better mix. But, it must be a good mix to begin with.

You take a good mix and master it, it's going to be louder and therefore sound better.

If the mix is shit, mastering will just make a shitty mix louder.

By the way, these aren't some shady amateurs doing this outta their garage, these are legitimate "master engineers" with a name in the industry.

 

[Jimbo Trashy]

Yes, I am talking strictly about loudness mastering.

 

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

There's no professional procedure called "loudness mastering". What do you do? Get it "regular mastered" first then go to another guy for the loudness? And why would anyone pay just to have a threshold/make up gain knob turned until their record sounds like shyt? How does that make sense? Again, where do you get the idea mastering is the process of making everything "loud"? A good mastering engineer(they do exsist)can get your sound to the same perceived loudness as anything else current in the same range of what you're doing while maintaining or even improving the dynamics of the original mix. Mainly because they've perfected the craft and accumulated tools for the sole purpose of doing so that you may not even find in the average mixing environment.

It's about a competent engineer giving a final listen and adding final touches to give the best quality possible to your work. Remove the "competent person" in any part of the recording process and things are done wrong. Apply a competent person, and things come out BETTER than they were before the process. If that's not the case, you've wasted money and time and should go back a step. Metallica wasted time, money, and eventually went back a step because of one incompetent person, so now, guys think they know what they're talking about when they get into this "loudness wars" crap. There was no "loudness war". Just too many engineers that were still wet behind the ears getting a hold of a Waves L series Limiter and taking gigs.

I'm pretty sure you've misquoted your "industry friends", because you are way off with everything you're saying as if you've halfway listened to a ton of conversations and plucked a word or 2 from each sentence. Also funny you named the 3 top of the list processors for mastering(comp, EQ, Limiting)as a workaround for mastering. Now I'm really confused.

 

[Jimbo Trashy]

There's no professional procedure called "loudness mastering". What do you do? Get it "regular mastered" first then go to another guy for the loudness? And why would anyone pay just to have a threshold/make up gain knob turned until their record sounds like shyt? How does that make sense? Again, where do you get the idea mastering is the process of making everything "loud"? A good mastering engineer(they do exsist)can get your sound to the same perceived loudness as anything else current in the same range of what you're doing while maintaining or even improving the dynamics of the original mix. Mainly because they've perfected the craft and accumulated tools for the sole purpose of doing so that you may not even find in the average mixing environment.

It's about a competent engineer giving a final listen and adding final touches to give the best quality possible to your work. Remove the "competent person" in any part of the recording process and things are done wrong. Apply a competent person, and things come out BETTER than they were before the process. If that's not the case, you've wasted money and time and should go back a step. Metallica wasted time, money, and eventually went back a step because of one incompetent person, so now, guys think they know what they're talking about when they get into this "loudness wars" crap. There was no "loudness war". Just too many engineers that were still wet behind the ears getting a hold of a Waves L series Limiter and taking gigs.

I'm pretty sure you've misquoted your "industry friends", because you are way off with everything you're saying as if you've halfway listened to a ton of conversations and plucked a word or 2 from each sentence. Also funny you named the 3 top of the list processors for mastering(comp, EQ, Limiting)as a workaround for mastering. Now I'm really confused.

I didn't half listen to anything. All of them have told me that "Mastering" is a gimmick.

I'm not talking about duplication/replication process of creating a master or using EQs, and limiters and compression.

I'm talking specifically about running your final mix into a program like wave lab, boosting the overall sound and added a few extra plugins to make the boost more noticeable in more areas.

Which is essentially, just "making it louder".

It takes 5 minutes, but these master engineers will hold on to it for days and act like it took all week.

Then charge these sucker garage bands an arm and a leg for something the band could have essentially done themselves or done without.

 

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

Who the hell is "them"? Name names or it didn't happen. I'm sure they'd stand by such a bold statement.

And if that is the case, why do they still get their material mastered?

And the time it takes to master a project depends on the project and procedure. One song? Entire album? What type of media it will be distributed to(vinyl, DVD, iTunes, CD)? Just ran thru Pro Tools? Ran thru a rack while they wait on a special ordered piece of gear to finish the job? Again, you are FACTUALLY wrong about everything you are saying UNLESS you're referring to one individual's practices who has no right to call himself an M.E.

 

[Jimbo Trashy]

Who the hell is "them"? Name names or it didn't happen. I'm sure they'd stand by such a bold statement.

And if that is the case, why do they still get their material mastered?

And the time it takes to master a project depends on the project and procedure. One song? Entire album? What type of media it will be distributed to(vinyl, DVD, iTunes, CD)? Just ran thru Pro Tools? Ran thru a rack while they wait on a special ordered piece of gear to finish the job? Again, you are FACTUALLY wrong about everything you are saying UNLESS you're referring to one individual's practices who has no right to call himself an M.E.

I went to an audio school in Los Angeles called The Los Angeles Recording School. They had various producers come in and talk to us as well as work with us. Some worked with NIN, Madonna, Prince etc.

Nobody discouraged mastering, but they all said exactly what I've stated.

"It's not needed" "It ruined the music industry" "We charge people to boost their music" Etc. etc.

This is what they told me. And considering their position in the industry, I listened.

What we did in our mastering class was exactly what I stated in Wavelab.

When asked why they use wavelab, they said its the most widely used mastering software in the industry.

Why do they get their material mastered? Because there is a market for it. Because people will pay top dollar to get their music louder with "professional software".