Best ways to master

By the way, if you find mastering useful. Then go for it. I'm not trying to convince not to do it.

But, from what I've been told by people who work with some high profile clients...YES they master, but NO it's not necessary and they only do it because it's become part of the protocol.
 
James Trashy said:
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".
Click to expand...

Again, that doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the solution be..."instead of paying someone, just do it yourself" if all it involved was 5 minutes on a computer making things loud? You have done nothing but make all involved in your post seem to be guys who know nothing of what they speak. I'm gonna chuck that up to you being a bad listener 1 more time. I'm not going to believe for a second Los Angeles Recording School brought out speakers who said mastering was a waste of time and not 1 student or professor in the school challenged it. That makes that school worthless. I guess just as worthless as the school is if they tell you you're a mastering engineer after using wavelab and a brickwall limiter for 5 minutes. And not sure where they got the idea Wavelab was the most used anything to teach it to you. I was being humble before, but... EVERY PRO I KNOW USES SEQUOIA/SAMPLITUDE, CUBASE/NUENDO OR PRO TOOLS(and I've been in quite a few rooms with plaques on walls). NONE OF THEM ONLY USE A COMPUTER. MOST HAVE RACKS ON TOP OF RACKS OF OUTBOARD GEAR THAT CANNOT BE EMULATED WITH SOFTWARE. Little things like delays/reverbs they turn way down over the entire track while mastering to the point you can barely hear it that cost more than most people's entire setups. These guys are the reason I still call myself a novice engineer after mixing and mastering records for Chyna Whyte(BME), G. Dep(Bad Boy), Yukmouth(Rap A Lot), Mr. Serv-On(No Limit), J. hood(Ruff Ryders), Brotha Lynch, Big Fa$e Hunned, Gonzoe, B. Legit, and MANY OTHERS...TOO MANY OTHERS. Because i'm still no where close to the level they're at, and I know NO ONE who can do what they're doing in 5 minutes.

I'm in no way saying any program is always used...I'm saying I'VE NEVER SEEN THE MASTERING PROCESS DONE IN WAVELAB FOR A MAJOR RECORDING(not saying it hasn't been)IN MY DECADE SPENT IN L.A. WORKING OUT OF MULTIPLE STUDIOS AND SITTING IN SESSIONS. For it to be the "tool everyone uses" as your school makes it out to be, I'd think I'd at least see it as often as I do Pro Tools? No? Hmmm......

I've known studios to have it on deck if you chose to use it, and I take that back, I may have seen it used once or twice a decade ago...Nah, not for anything done by majors. Could be the genre you dwell in, but again, if it's "the most used", it should've picked up some wind with everyone. I know plenty of novices that use it or Soundforge/CD Architect, plenty of nice studios with no clients of importance, but we're talking "pros", right? I've seen it used as a tracklist arranger, but we're talking about applying effects and processing to a stereo audio file to give it it's polish. NEVER SEEN IT USED SOLEY FOR THAT BY ANYONE WORKING ON A PRO ALBUM(again, not saying it hasn't been done, just saying that makes it a bold statement to tell me it's the "most used").

And what school is teaching you the main thing any real M.E. will tell you to avoid...the silly idea that mastering is about LOUDNESS? NIN, Prince, and Madonna credits? And they don't have the ear to understand how important a good mastering job is? There's all types of rules I feel can be broken. Like...people say not to, but why not both mix and master yourself? Just walk away from the song for 2 weeks before you do(could be bad advice, but better to revisit with your own fresh ear than leaving everything with no finished polish whatsoever).

Any other M.E.'s on this site please chime in, I'm completely drained. This guy has all the answers.
 
Last edited:
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
Again, that doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the solution be..."instead of paying someone, just do it yourself" if all it involved was 5 minutes on a computer making things loud? You have done nothing but make all involved in your post seem to be guys who know nothing of what they speak. I'm gonna chuck that up to you being a bad listener 1 more time. I'm not going to believe for a second Los Angeles Recording School brought out speakers who said mastering was a waste of time and not 1 student or professor in the school challenged it. That makes that school worthless. I guess just as worthless as the school is if they tell you you're a mastering engineer after using wavelab and a brickwall limiter for 5 minutes. And not sure where they got the idea Wavelab was the most used anything to teach it to you. I was being humble before, but... EVERY PRO I KNOW USES SEQUOIA/SAMPLITUDE, CUBASE/NUENDO OR PRO TOOLS(and I've been in quite a few rooms with plaques on walls). NONE OF THEM ONLY USE A COMPUTER. MOST HAVE RACKS ON TOP OF RACKS OF OUTBOARD GEAR THAT CANNOT BE EMULATED WITH SOFTWARE. Little things like delays/reverbs they turn way down over the entire track while mastering to the point you can barely hear it that cost more than most people's entire setups. These guys are the reason I still call myself a novice engineer after mixing and mastering records for Chyna Whyte(BME), G. Dep(Bad Boy), Yukmouth(Rap A Lot), Mr. Serv-On(No Limit), J. hood(Ruff Ryders), Brotha Lynch, Big Fa$e Hunned, Gonzoe, B. Legit, and MANY OTHERS...TOO MANY OTHERS. Because i'm still no where close to the level they're at, and I know NO ONE who can do what they're doing in 5 minutes.

I'm in no way saying any program is always used...I'm saying I'VE NEVER SEEN THE MASTERING PROCESS DONE IN WAVELAB FOR A MAJOR RECORDING(not saying it hasn't been)IN MY DECADE SPENT IN L.A. WORKING OUT OF MULTIPLE STUDIOS AND SITTING IN SESSIONS. For it to be the "tool everyone uses" as your school makes it out to be, I'd think I'd at least see it as often as I do Pro Tools? No? Hmmm......

I've known studios to have it on deck if you chose to use it, and I take that back, I may have seen it used once or twice a decade ago...Nah, not for anything done by majors. Could be the genre you dwell in, but again, if it's "the most used", it should've picked up some wind with everyone. I know plenty of novices that use it or Soundforge/CD Architect, plenty of nice studios with no clients of importance, but we're talking "pros", right? I've seen it used as a tracklist arranger, but we're talking about applying effects and processing to a stereo audio file to give it it's polish. NEVER SEEN IT USED SOLEY FOR THAT BY ANYONE WORKING ON A PRO ALBUM(again, not saying it hasn't been done, just saying that makes it a bold statement to tell me it's the "most used").

And what school is teaching you the main thing any real M.E. will tell you to avoid...the silly idea that mastering is about LOUDNESS? NIN, Prince, and Madonna credits? And they don't have the ear to understand how important a good mastering job is? There's all types of rules I feel can be broken. Like...people say not to, but why not both mix and master yourself? Just walk away from the song for 2 weeks before you do(could be bad advice, but better to revisit with your own fresh ear than leaving everything with no finished polish whatsoever).

Any other M.E.'s on this site please chime in, I'm completely drained. This guy has all the answers.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you're getting so upset. You act as if I'm taking money out of your pocket, by saying that the final step of mastering is not a necessity.

I liken it to a woman with breast implants. She doesn't need them, but if you like her with implants, then great.

As I said before, maybe it's a corporate thing where the school gets paid by the makers of Wavelab to push their products, I really don't know other than what they've told me.

Now, we could chalk them up as a bunch of idiots if you like, but they did teach me a lot and my production value has improved tremendously.

The teachers told us to do our own mastering because it was a gimmick, but they also said that there is a big market for musicians who are clueless demanding their records get mastered before anyone hears it because they've been conditioned to think (thanks to the radio) and major record labels pushing "LOUDNESS" as the key benefactor in sales.

Because these musicians exist, as a producer, they recommended giving off the impression that it was a long tedious process, but that it could be done in a few easy steps to make most people content with paying X amount of dollars for essentially 5 minutes of plugin work.

I'm not saying I have all the answers bro or that you are wrong and I am right.

I am reiterating what I was taught/told and simply stating that mastering is cool if you want to use it, but most people abuse it and it's not necessary.

There is such thing as over produced. Not everything needs to sound like a clean Britney Spears beat. I believe that is the message they were trying to convey.

The fact that there is no absolute rule in making music, such as "You MUST master your song or it's pointless to release it" etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
Here is a short resyme of how Bruno Gruel mastered Guetta/Rowlands When Love Takes Over. He mentions boosting the end level to loud for sure, but pay attention to the rest of the details of his explanation
The source for this is Sound on Sounds Secretes of the Mix engineer (<--click for the whole list of articles, or for the specific one quoted. -->): When Love Takes Over - Veronica Ferraro (mixer)

Yeah; there is much more to mastering than boosting the loudness.

Bruno Gruel adds: “I received the files from Veronica in 24-bit/44.1kHz non-interleaved Pro Tools format, and applied the setup that I normally use for this kind of music. I sent the digital file into a Lavry D-A converter, which has a really neutral sound. Then the signal was passed through a DW Fearn VT7 tube compressor to achieve a ‘pre EQ’ on the master. Its transformers do a remarkable job on the mid-range, and it sounds very smooth, with plenty of bandwith. To knock the bass drum and low synths into shape, I’ve extensively used the Maselec MEA2 EQ around 60Hz and 80Hz with a tight Q factor.
“The whole mix also received a gentle touch of a Maselec MLA2 compressor and came back into the digital domain via the Prism AD1 converter. After that I’ve added some Weiss EQ1 Mk2 to clean up a few frequencies and to perform a little spreading of the stereo image by using its M/S abilities. Finally, there was a bit of DS1 Mk3 for a final limiting, levelling and recording in a Merging Pyramix DAW, and then I pushed the track up on my Westlake BBSM12, loud!”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Heyclown said:
Here is a short resyme of how Bruno Gruel mastered Guetta/Rowlands When Love Takes Over. He mentions boosting the end level to loud for sure, but pay attention to the rest of the details of his explanation
The source for this is Sound on Sounds Secretes of the Mix engineer (<--click for the whole list of articles, or for the specific one quoted. -->): When Love Takes Over - Veronica Ferraro (mixer)

Yeah; there is much more to mastering than boosting the loudness.
Click to expand...

Isn't that part of the mixing/creative process? I mess with compressors/EQs and limiters and what he's describing (although with different tools) to achieve the sound I want while I'm creating the mix.

Perhaps there is a confusion of terminology.

The connotation of "Mastering" at my school was described as the VERY LAST process (if desired) to boost the overall loudness to its absolute peak levels without clipping/distorting the audio.

What you're describing sounds like part of the mixing process with that LOUDNESS added as the cherry on top.
 
Last edited:
He works as a dedicated Mastering Engineer. Press the link and you can read about the mixing on the track as well as described done by Veronika Ferraro. They obviously treat the 2 things differently.
This is a tad beyond messing with compressors/EQ immafraid.

You can also take a look at some of the CV of Bruno Gruel over at ALLMusic and you will see that all he does is mainly mastering. A dedicated mastering engineer. Not to be mistaken with us who toss a brick wall limiter on the master for loudness Oo
No, I do not think they are confused :cool:
 
Last edited:
James Trashy said:
Not sure why you're getting so upset. You act as if I'm taking money out of your pocket, by saying that the final step of mastering is not a necessity.

I liken it to a woman with breast implants. She doesn't need them, but if you like her with implants, then great.

As I said before, maybe it's a corporate thing where the school gets paid by the makers of Wavelab to push their products, I really don't know other than what they've told me.

Now, we could chalk them up as a bunch of idiots if you like, but they did teach me a lot and my production value has improved tremendously.

The teachers told us to do our own mastering because it was a gimmick, but they also said that there is a big market for musicians who are clueless demanding their records get mastered before anyone hears it because they've been conditioned to think (thanks to the radio) and major record labels pushing "LOUDNESS" as the key benefactor in sales.

Because these musicians exist, as a producer, they recommended giving off the impression that it was a long tedious process, but that it could be done in a few easy steps to make most people content with paying X amount of dollars for essentially 5 minutes of plugin work.

I'm not saying I have all the answers bro or that you are wrong and I am right.

I am reiterating what I was taught/told and simply stating that mastering is cool if you want to use it, but most people abuse it and it's not necessary.

There is such thing as over produced. Not everything needs to sound like a clean Britney Spears beat. I believe that is the message they were trying to convey.

The fact that there is no absolute rule in making music, such as "You MUST master your song or it's pointless to release it" etc. etc.
Click to expand...

I'm upset that anything that would call themselves a music institution would blatantly LIE to people enrolled in their school. Nothing more. I'm done. One day, you'll learn the true procedure of mastering records that dates back to Elvis and the Beatles(1st time around) and realize how ridiculous the guys speaking at your school are.
 
Processing doesn't come first when mastering. Monitoring does.
That's why DIY mastering usually gives poor results especially when people try to merge both mixing and mastering in a single process.
If you have a little money to spend, just hire a mastering studio.
If you have no money, ask a friend with both fresh ears on your tracks, different monitors and acoustics than yours. That's the only way to override your studio's flaws.
 
Last edited:
Dynamic range is critical for the mastering process, too many tracks ignore this fact. Every mastering engineer is aware of DR of course, however, the decision to ignore DR and levels usually come from the label who have the power to dictate what the final master will sound like. There are a ton of videos on youtube about the loudness wars
 
^^^That's real, I've been working with indies so long, I start forgetting industry politics. The way everything sounds this day and age, I'm sure labels are pushing engineers to boost signals beyond where they should be to sound more like whoever had the last "big record".
 
To get a good idea from tutorials there's this one guy on YouTube name "John Miller" best tutorials for FL studio, look him up.

But like said in a previous comment make sure your mix is mixed good. It took me a minute to realized i had to drop the mix low to about -6db to leave some head room.
 
laurend said:
Processing doesn't come first when mastering. Monitoring does.
That's why DIY mastering usually gives poor results especially when people try to merge both mixing and mastering in a single process.
If you have a little money to spend, just hire a mastering studio.
If you have no money, ask a friend with both fresh ears on your tracks, different monitors and acoustics than yours. That's the only way to override your studio's flaws.
Click to expand...

I guess I confused people when I asked my question. I want to learn mastering because it interests me and the gear is fascinating and I would like to pursue it more as I could see it being an enjoyable profession for myself (obviously need lots of time and practice with it). I mentioned doing my own tracks because I thought you could master your own stuff if you knew how to master, but I guess its not the best way.
 
not really, just got sidetracked about an issue that is making some peoples blood boil more than others

pursuing a career as a mastering engineer is a noble goal - I suggest that you find an internship at a mastering house to better understand the issues, some of which have been raised here.

If you want to run your own mastering business, be prepared to be spending a significant chunk of cash ($20k+ per) on each one of many items needed: room treatment, monitors, hardware, software, convertors (high end AD/DA)
 
I apologize if I came off as a douche in this thread. Not my intensions by far. Just a little frustrated that such a respectable and prestigious practice is now drug through the mud because of the belief it's "just about making things loud". I'm a novice at this myself. I'm not working out of a real facility, if anything, I should be saying "send your stuff to me instead, I do "budget jobs". But that's my point.

Music is becoming an overall lost craft because everyone wants a "do it from home shortcut" for everything. It's not taking money out of my pockets, I'm recording clients every night thru a $99 Audiobox. My issue is when I tell guys to get it mastered they respond "can't you do it?" When people send me files via email to mix and I tell them get it mastered, they say "just make it loud, you know what you're doing", and the few to never times I actually get a file from someone on a budget who wants a 'mastering job done", the signal is already so squashed to shyt, I have nothing to work with. I've dedicated alot of time to music, nothing close to the time these guys who get ripped apart have dedicated. But I'm just ranting, it doesn't matter. Sorry for sidetracking the thread.
 
I wasn't criticising you deranged - your position was sane (as yours mostly are :) ); it was the blind statements others made and then tried hard to defend; but could not muster anything beyond "some big name said it in a class I was (sleeping) in": without naming the name, we have no idea of the context or the "truthiness" of the statements offered
 
The best way to master is to not master!
Do as much as you can in the mix, so that the only thing you will need to think of in the mastering stage is some soft clipping or limiting.
 
I honestly don't see why DIY mastering is something that should be avoided. It's awesome and something that every producer can benefit from.

If you're using the native stuff in FL, Maximus may be your best friend. I used to only use multiband compressors on the master channel as my plugins, but Maximus gives you a visual of your track among some other great features.

My typical mastering chain has 2 or 3 parametric EQ2s, Maximus, and a Limiter. (In that order). I also suggest getting a spectrum analyzer; it helps a bunch.
 
I think people are still confusing exactly what "mastering" is. Nomatter what you do in the mixing process, the Mastering Engineer is going to add his 2 cents and do what is needed to add the touch he thinks is missing. Nothing more, nothing less. So...in order to "master" your own stuff, you'd mix it first. And if you're anything like me, you go back to your mix 20 times over a week or 2 before you think it's done the entire time listening to it through multiple sources, and as soon as you send off the file with "final mix" on the end of it, you find something else that can be fixed and end up sending off the file again labeled "final final mix" with an explanation like "oh, my bad, I sent you the wrong one, this is the "real final mix".

Anyways, to "DIY Master" your own song, take a week or 2 off(optional, but trust me, it will help to approach it with fresh ears)take that "final final mix" stereo file(meaning a wav, aif, or stereo output from your gear, not any type of multitrack), Load the stereo file into a processing source(for most of us, it will be a DAW)and tinker with anything you hear that can be adjusted. It may be best to wait until you have a collection of songs done and do this to all of them at the same time.

A song can be mixed "loud" and sound great if mixed well, so "making it loud" isn't necessarily going to be the only job an M.E. has if he recieves a great mix.
 
i like how most people are assuming its all software.

my buddy just bought a knif vari mu II for his mastering studio. who knew!

he loves it btw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top