Mastering: Both at the same time?

[4-Getta]

Hello...
I used to let some audio engineer master my songs but eversince I want to do it myself I copied his method.
When he was mastering my stuff he wanted me to give him two files.
File a: Accapella File b: Instrumental

He was loading those files into Pro Tools and began mastering.
That's where I don't really know how to go on.
Any ideas? Especially: Do I put the limiter (Waves L3) on both the instrumental and the vocal tracks seperately or do I have to put it on the L/R Mix where both are routed to? I know that the difference when I use the L/R mix is, that it will sound more like mixed together, because the Limiter is working on both files dynamic at the same time...I'm not sure though...any help apreciated

 

[dvyce]

Hello...
I used to let some audio engineer master my songs but eversince I want to do it myself I copied his method.
When he was mastering my stuff he wanted me to give him two files.
File a: Accapella File b: Instrumental

He was loading those files into Pro Tools and began mastering.
That's where I don't really know how to go on.
Any ideas? Especially: Do I put the limiter (Waves L3) on both the instrumental and the vocal tracks seperately or do I have to put it on the L/R Mix where both are routed to? I know that the difference when I use the L/R mix is, that it will sound more like mixed together, because the Limiter is working on both files dynamic at the same time...I'm not sure though...any help apreciated

I am guessing that when you say "mastering" you just mean putting some overall compression on your mix...


...because, if you are mastering, there should be no "corrective" processing to do since you can do that in the mix and if you know you need to correct something, you should correct it in the mix.

...and , you are not dealing with preparing your music for manufacture (which is not a finction in protools)



Anyway, I am sure the engineer you used wanted the instrumental and vocal separate so he would be able to better deal with any mix issues your music had... He probably wanted to have that control.

If you are doing it yourself, I can't see any reason offhand to have them separated.

 

[4-Getta]

Man I don't wanna be cocky, but I'm actually stuiying this ****...I know that mastering is the final stage where you **** around with the dynamics and the frequencies of a track, right? I just want to know if I should add a limiter to the L/R mix or to the seperated files...and yes this engineer was a pro who is mixing nr.1 ****. I cost me a lot of money.

 

[dvyce]

Man I don't wanna be cocky, but I'm actually stuiying this ****...I know that mastering is the final stage where you **** around with the dynamics and the frequencies of a track, right? I just want to know if I should add a limiter to the L/R mix or to the seperated files...and yes this engineer was a pro who is mixing nr.1 ****. I cost me a lot of money.

I answered your question. Please read my post again.


"If you are doing it yourself, I can't see any reason offhand to have them separated."


I even explained why he may have wanted them separated and why you should not need them separated.

 

[Optyx_Productions]

Ok dude your wrong! let me help ya.

Man I don't wanna be cocky, but I'm actually stuiying this ****...I know that mastering is the final stage where you **** around with the dynamics and the frequencies of a track, right? I just want to know if I should add a limiter to the L/R mix or to the seperated files...and yes this engineer was a pro who is mixing nr.1 ****. I cost me a lot of money.

Um let me give it to you properly. Mastering is not messing with dynamics any part of finding your final dynamics is finished in mixing. That mix is then taken and Mastered where it is prepared for a final medium (i.e. CD, Tape, Record, Online distibution...ect). Secondly Protools is not equiped to master music in. It is used to track and mix, other sofware programs are used to master (wavelab, bias peak, soundforge) so if your mastering in protools your not doing your mix justice especially if you are using Pro tools LE or M-powered. so yeah but for real information on mastering look up MassiveMastering on his site his posts will give you plenty of information about mastering.

 

[neilwight]

Man I don't wanna be cocky, but I'm actually stuiying this ****...I know that mastering is the final stage where you **** around with the dynamics and the frequencies of a track, right? I just want to know if I should add a limiter to the L/R mix or to the seperated files...and yes this engineer was a pro who is mixing nr.1 ****. I cost me a lot of money.

i always find that starting a statement with a caveat tends to mean that what follows is exactly what was stated. sadly this was no exception.
if your studying it then you should know what should be applied where and when. this is the most basic of mastering questions you are asking here.
secondly just because someone is mixing number 1 hits doesnt mean that they are qualified to comment on mastering. its an entirely different skill and id almost guarantee that if they are indeed working on top 40s then theres no way they mastered it aswell. id suggest that probably 80% of top 40 billboard is coming out of sterling in NYC for its mastering and i doubt anyone in there was asking you for stems let alone working from protools
as mentioned before, theres a basic set of requirements for DAW mastering apps. thats why you see only a few used. sequoia, sadie and pyramix being the most common. nuendo, cubase, logic, protools etc all cannot make masters and are therefor redundant in this situation.

theres an interesting paradox with self producing and the processing stage of mastering. if you can make it better through processing in the mastering stage you quite simply didnt mix aswell as you could have done. its an inescapable truth. a true catch 22.
processing during mastering is always a compromise in some aspect. theres nothing done here that couldnt have been done better individually within the mix itself with regards to audio processing on an individual track basis

 

[MASSIVE Mastering]

OT: Nice to see you 'round here again, NW...

 

[Degree]

theres an interesting paradox with self producing and the processing stage of mastering. if you can make it better through processing in the mastering stage you quite simply didnt mix aswell as you could have done. its an inescapable truth. a true catch 22.
processing during mastering is always a compromise in some aspect. theres nothing done here that couldnt have been done better individually within the mix itself with regards to audio processing on an individual track basis

I have to say I disagree with this statement.
It's the same as dismissing how different a mixed track responds to processing as opposed to how it reacts on a track level.

Processing individual tracks and processing a mix achieves different results, so the whole "fix-it-in-the-mix-instead" idea is a fallacy.
IOW there is no way you can achieve the results of compressing a whole mix by processing individual tracks.

There are many good reasons for having someone else mastering a track, this is not one of them IMO.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I have to say I disagree with this statement.
It's the same as dismissing how different a mixed track responds to processing as opposed to how it reacts on a track level.

Processing individual tracks and processing a mix achieves different results, so the whole "fix-it-in-the-mix-instead" idea is a fallacy.
IOW there is no way you can achieve the results of compressing a whole mix by processing individual tracks.

There are many good reasons for having someone else mastering a track, this is not one of them IMO.

And I have to say I disagree with your disagreement.... no surprise there, though - I often disagree with much of what you post....

 

[Degree]

And I have to say I disagree with your disagreement.... no surprise there, though - I often disagree with much of what you post....

Well If you think you can achieve the same results by processing on a track level do tell Skippy.

So you think compressing on track level will give you the same results as bus-compression LOL.
Good for you...
Never mind the fact that it's theoretically impossible or the fact that the rest of the professional audio comunity disagrees with you


It's right up there with your "20 years of programming skills" mr Floating Point.

Priceless.

 

[4-Getta]

This thread is getting way out of hand

1) I'm studying audio engineering in my 2nd year and we didn't have any mastering lessons yet. Still I'm good at mixing though.
2) I know what mastering is and using a Limiter (what you should do while mastering to cut the edges of the loudest amplitudes and boost the lower sounds to make everything sound louder as before without cliping) is what you do in mastering stage not in mixing. At least not that much.
3) I was paying a coupple of hundred bucks to get my last CD mastered by a professional mastering engineer (not mixng!). Who does a good job on mastering and has real well known references. But this way is just to expensive for me so...
4) I will have to do it myself, even though a few people think "you shouldn't master your own stuff".
5) I only wanted to know if I should use a Limiter on the whole mix (vocals & beat at the same time) or split both up and aplly a limiter to each of them. Because the mastering engineer that was mentiond at point 3 was doing it like this. Yes this man was using Pro Tools, but NO I'm not using it. I am actually using Cubase.

I just wanted some good advice on using a limtier instead of somebody trying to explain that the world is ball

So let's no argue in this thread let's talk about the general proceedure of a mastering session, especially when it comes to using a limiter.

 

[neilwight]

I have to say I disagree with this statement.
It's the same as dismissing how different a mixed track responds to processing as opposed to how it reacts on a track level.

Processing individual tracks and processing a mix achieves different results, so the whole "fix-it-in-the-mix-instead" idea is a fallacy.
IOW there is no way you can achieve the results of compressing a whole mix by processing individual tracks.

There are many good reasons for having someone else mastering a track, this is not one of them IMO.

yes to a certain extent but crucially we are talking about mastering here and NOT mixing. what holds for one doesnt for the other.
using 2buss or subgroup compression to get a certain effect/result during mixing is something thats unrelated to mastering. any compression done during mastering is solely to tidy up any residual issues left over from mixing. as such the options available to the ME are greatly reduced by needing to work from a stereo track rather than being able to address the issues specifically at source. sometimes the compromise is acceptable, other times a remix is required.

with regards to mixing, it could be quite reasonably argued that any compression on a 2buss or subgroup is working more as an effect rather than as a traditional dynamics role even if it is taming them in the process, though this is not to say that its inappropriate in the least.

2buss compression purely for dynamic control can always be improved upon by compressing individually at track level whether this be at the mixing or mastering stage simply because you are able to deal solely with the offending peaks without impacting anything else. in mastering, compressions role is purely to tame wayward dynamics, in mixing you can use it for anything you see fit

a limiter is usually the second last stage of any mastering process, prior to dithering.
that is if limiters are being used at all. many feel, me included that they soften the sound too much and the trade off isnt worth it in the vast majority of situations

 

[Degree]

yes to a certain extent but crucially we are talking about mastering here and NOT mixing. what holds for one doesnt for the other.
using 2buss or subgroup compression to get a certain effect/result during mixing is something thats unrelated to mastering. any compression done during mastering is solely to tidy up an residual issues left over from mixing and as such options available to the ME are greatly reduced by needing to work from a stereo track rather than being able to address the issues specifically at source.
with regards to mixing, it could be quite reasonably argued that any compression on a 2buss or subgroup is working more as an effect rather than as a traditional dynamics role even if it is taming them in the process, though this is not to say that its inappropriate in the least.
2buss compression purely for dynamic control can always be improved upon by compressing individually at track level whether this be at the mixing or mastering stage as you are able to deal solely with the offending peaks without impacting anything else. in mastering, compressions role is purely to tame wayward dynamics, in mixing you can use it for anything you see fit

limiter is usually the second last stage of any mastering process, prior to dithering.
that is if limiters are being used at all. many feel, me included that they soften the sound too much and the trade off isnt worth it in the vast majority of situations

Strictly speaking you were talking about both mix and mastering.
and your statement is wrong, plain and simple.

"theres nothing done here that couldnt have been done better individually within the mix itself with regards to audio processing on an individual track basis"

So we are talking about both and it still stands that the results from compressing a whole mix or sub-mix CANNOT be achieved by track level processing.
This goes whether you're sub-mixing or mastering.

There's simply NO WAY you can achieve the same results.
So the "fix-it-in-the-mix-instead" isn't really an option.

In some cases, corrections are better done with remix, but as an argument for not mastering your own stuff it's a no go.

Having said that: If I can achieve better results myself, then why not?

 

[neilwight]

ehm, im not quite sure where to start with respect to answering that as there seems to be some comprehension issues somewhere. im also not sure that quoting where i used the word "mix" in a sentence shows that i must have therefor been talking about dynamic control in general and not with regards to mastering and from that perspective, it seems quite clear to me that if you read it, at no point was i suggesting otherwise. anyways....

i never stated that certain results achieved by group compression could be matched with individual compression. i said that with respect to compression as its treated in mastering (proper mastering, not mixdowns that many seem to consider mastering somehow), its always the case that the compression could be done more effectively/transparently on an individual track level within the mix than it can on the 2buss.

im also not sure your grasping the fundamental of my self mastering catch 22 either. if you mix your work then improve its sound during mastering processing it must clearly follow that the steps taken during mixing werent taken appropriately and you didnt mix as best as you could have done.
if you need to compress in mastering to control dynamics then it follows that you didnt deal with them appropriately at mix level. its inescapable. if you compress at "your mastering" stage for any other reason than peak control then you are out of the realm of mastering and back into mixing.
its not that tricky a concept to follow and i never once stated it as a reason against self mastering. reasons against self mastering would be objectivity, objectivity, objectivity, environment and probably gear.
it was just mentioned as i find the paradox interesting and felt it was relevant to the route the discussion had taken.

it seemed to me that both these points were expressed fairly clearly in the posts above however if that was not the case, as can sometimes be the case on forums, then i hope this has now cleared up my position.

Having said that: If I can achieve better results myself, then why not?

better results with regards to what exactly. while the statement is generally acutely obvious, if you can do something better yourself it should follow that you should then do it yourself. the subjective nature of many things immediately makes it less so.

with regards to mastering (processing only), i hear tracks DIY mastered with these very same statements, genuinely expressed, that are bordering chronic from a technical point of view. beyond thsi they also dont fulfill the basic functions of a mastering role, ie they havent dealt with the preparation of a pre master for manufacturing and so dont even come under this label. all thats been done is some form of mixdown.
i wouldnt consider myself mastering if i wasnt dealing with production of a PMCD/DDP, QC'ing,error checking, spacing, dealing with project cohesiveness and preparing all the necessary paper trails. if my job began and ended with the processing stage id consider myself some sort of post mix mixdown engineer.

OT: Nice to see you 'round here again, NW...

thanks, likewise glad to see your still here. was looking for the hitting oneself on the head with a hammer icon but there doesnt seem to be one

 

[MASSIVE Mastering]

I use this one (hosted at my site - Feel free...)

 

[dvyce]

I have to say I disagree with this statement.
It's the same as dismissing how different a mixed track responds to processing as opposed to how it reacts on a track level.

Processing individual tracks and processing a mix achieves different results, so the whole "fix-it-in-the-mix-instead" idea is a fallacy.
IOW there is no way you can achieve the results of compressing a whole mix by processing individual tracks.

There are many good reasons for having someone else mastering a track, this is not one of them IMO.

....uh.... but that is not "fixing it in the mix" (and i actually specifically addressed overall mix compression as the thing he, and most others here, is probably talking about when he talks about mastering, by the way)

"Fix it in the mix" would be something like "that hi hat is too sizzly" or "the bass in flopping my speakers around" and trying to "fix" it in mastering...

If the hi hat is too sizzly or the bass is too floppy then you can and should fix that in the mix rather than trying to fix it in mastering.


compressing the overall stereo mix is something you can do for the particular effect of doing that if it is desired... It is not a "fix"

Well If you think you can achieve the same results by processing on a track level do tell Skippy.

So you think compressing on track level will give you the same results as bus-compression LOL.
Good for you...
Never mind the fact that it's theoretically impossible or the fact that the rest of the professional audio comunity disagrees with you


It's right up there with your "20 years of programming skills" mr Floating Point.

Priceless.

I believe you are talking about something different from what everybody else is talking about.

5) I only wanted to know if I should use a Limiter on the whole mix (vocals & beat at the same time) or split both up and aplly a limiter to each of them. Because the mastering engineer that was mentiond at point 3 was doing it like this. Yes this man was using Pro Tools, but NO I'm not using it. I am actually using Cubase.

I just wanted some good advice on using a limtier instead of somebody trying to explain that the world is ball

I did answer this for you way back in the beginning of this thread... remember? right before you said i didn't answer it for you?

ehm, im not quite sure where to start with respect to answering that as there seems to be some comprehension issues somewhere.

Man! what you just said there totally sparked my memory... I feel like i am having deja vu with this thread... I think I said those same exact words myself not too long ago! (and I have a feeling you will be saying those words several more times in this thread!)

I have been here before and I am getting out right now!
...Before I start doing this to myself:

 

[Degree]

@Dvyce

compressing the overall stereo mix is something you can do for the particular effect of doing that if it is desired... It is not a "fix"

Yes.
That is what I am saying. The results you get by compressing a stereo-mix or a sub-mix cannot be achieved by going back to track level processing like he says when he states there's nothing going on.

IOW there IS stuff going on that cannot be achieved at using processing at track level.

There are things happening when processing the whole track(aswell as when processing sub-mixes, that, simply put, CANNOT be done by going back to the mix.
Hence it is NOT an argument for not doing any stereo processing yourself, whether you choose to call it stereo-processing, sub-mix-processing or mastering.

...and that is why I disagreed with his statement.

Would you say "there's nothing going on" when stereo processing that can't be done at a track level basis?

I believe you are talking about something different from what everybody else is talking about.

What is it that you think I am talking about.?

i never stated that certain results achieved by group compression could be matched with individual compression.

Erm You said:
"theres nothing done here that couldnt have been done better individually within the mix itself with regards to audio processing on an individual track basis"

and that IS wrong no matter what you call the stereo-processing or whether it's part of the mix-process or not.

i said that with respect to compression as its treated in mastering (proper mastering, not mixdowns that many seem to consider mastering somehow), its always the case that the compression could be done more effectively/transparently on an individual track level within the mix than it can on the 2buss.

No.

It WILL NOT give the same results.
And for exactly that reason people you bus compression dusing mixing.
and for the same reason material is shaped as whole during the mastering stage.

You CANNOT achieve those results processing on a track level.

There is no "comprehension" problem here'
"You simply stated "there is NOTHING GOING on that can t be done better at track level"
...and that is wrong no matter what you call the stereo-processing.

im also not sure your grasping the fundamental of my self mastering catch 22 either. if you mix your work then improve its sound during mastering processing it must clearly follow that the steps taken during mixing werent taken appropriately and you didnt mix as best as you could have done.
if you need to compress in mastering to control dynamics then it follows that you didnt deal with them appropriately at mix level. its inescapable. if you compress at "your mastering" stage for any other reason than peak control then you are out of the realm of mastering and back into mixing.
its not that tricky a concept to follow and i never once stated it as a reason against self mastering.

You assume that improvements made by stereo-processing could be done better during the mix. and I am saying with regards to stereo/bus compression
going back is NOT an alternative that will yield the same results.

IOW even when you are done and have the perfect mix, you can still do stuff to that stereo-material that you cannot do on a track based level.

So when you state this about mastering "theres nothing done here that couldnt have been done better individually within the mix itself with regards to audio processing on an individual track basis"
That's plain and simple wrong.

reasons against self mastering would be objectivity, objectivity, objectivity, environment and probably gear.

Yes, when objectivity is required.

However as a producer, I do like to stay in control of the end-result.
and sometimes someone elses objectivitycan trun things to the worse.

it was just mentioned as i find the paradox interesting and felt it was relevant to the route the discussion had taken.

it seemed to me that both these points were expressed fairly clearly in the posts above however if that was not the case, as can sometimes be the case on forums, then i hope this has now cleared up my position.

I still get the impression you think you can achieve similar results at tracklevel.
That sort of negates the whole concept of bus-compression and compression during mastering.

better results with regards to what exactly.

With regards to which version the label prefers to release.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

What is it that you think I am talking about.?

I don't think you know one way or the other, skippy.....

This, like most of your posts, is full of nonsense and half-thought-out bits of crap....

I think you alone are responsible for setting back Norway's audio community by at least a couple of decades....

 

[Degree]

I don't think you know one way or the other, skippy.....

This, like most of your posts, is full of nonsense and half-thought-out bits of crap....

Like what Skippy?

The fact that I don't think you can achive the same results with track based processing.
If that's your idea of "nonsense and half-thought-out bits of crap."
It's pretty obvious who's the dimbulb around here

I think you alone are responsible for setting back Norway's audio community by at least a couple of decades....

OK I take it back. It seems we really DO have a comprehension problem here.

I'm simply saying there IS stuff going on when stereo-processing a track or bus that cannot be achieved by track based processing. You disagreeing with that indicates that you really should strain your two braincells a little less, and leave the "thinking" to those with a capable intellect.

I stand by what I said that Neilwight is seriously in the wrong if he thinks there's "nothing going on".

Feel free to disagree with me Skippy.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Feel free to disagree with me Skippy.

Trust me, skippy - I do... and will continue to do so as long as you keep proving to me how mind-numbingly moronic you really are...

Now where's that "crazy" emoticon again? Oh yeah - here - you've earned it....