Hello to all
I m a little confused for
mastering...like, what should i use on master channel? i read somewhere that a little EQ and Limiter (with max 3-4 dbs reducing) is totally okay for a beat (dont know about the whole song, but possibly the same thing..
) BUT: i also saw and read to use
Compression, two eqs, plugins for width (for me thats really unnecessary becouse theres pan for each channel, also two eqs...)...so my main question is about
Compression on master...do we really need to use it there? Some questions if yes:
If we do mix at
~-7dbs, how much
Treshold to put (and
ratio also) ?
While taking
attack and realease, on what concrete we should concentrate, like when we change attack we should listen to kick or no? for release = ? ...
My vision is that with compressor you can somehow make it louder (which is my problem with mine beats/songs (i think i do a good/solid(just like i want it to be heard) mix, but problem after 2-3 years is loudness, i still dont know how to make it :S) ) but should i do without treshold (=0) so then
add limiter at the very end of master channel, with reducing 3-4 dbs like i said...? Am i right? Probably no, but can you help me about this ? (also im looking for compression on master but without
overcompressing loudest elemnt in my project (
kick in 99.9% cases))
Thanks in advice
Among all of the tracks you have in the mix, the mix bus is the one with the best potential transient balance and hence is where the compressor on the audio content potentially is most broadly impacting across the frequency spectrum. This essentially means that a compressor on the mix bus tends to "change the sound of the whole mix". Now, whether the compressor is goiyou ng to make the mix better or worse sounding when applied on the mix bus is totally depending on what content you feed to it in relation to how you use the compressor, because some compressors also have expander capabilities.
I would say that from a pro mastering perspective, you use the compressor both as an expander and as a compressor. Some of the mix frequencies you want to expand and some mix frequencies you want to compress. When you sweep across the frequencies of the mix you will notice that some frequency ranges are very harsh in attack content, those you compress. You will notice that some are very dead in punch/rhythm/breath/air, those you expand. Your aim is not to change the perceived loudness with the compressor, your aim is to improve the soft-punch to hard-flat ratio prior to the gain increase stage. It becomes a process of stretching and un-stretching parts of the frequency range to make the mix more musical sounding before gaining. This process is to a great extent controlled by the monitoring process, which dictates more obviously what you need to do with the audio content. It indirectly also becomes a process of balancing the various dimensions present in the audio.
Once the compressor has been used to dial in this musical sound, you can then gain the mix towards its sweet spot - which is where any audio playback system delivers that audio at the best possible audio quality.
Now, to many engineers out there, this is read as: great, this is what I'm missing, I just need to change a few things like this and then it will fly. It's not that simple. Mastering is a process stage where you can do a lot, but it is entirely limited to the input. The same about the mix, you can do a lot, but the limitation is the input. The "unleashing" of audio quality therefore happens by ensuring that the incoming audio quality is maximized, so that the last limiting process in the production chain will output as unleashed audio as possible. The earlier in the process where you go in and improve things, the smarter engineer move. This can be understood using a simple mathematical equation to express what happens:
(all numbers are in the range [1 - 3], where 3 is best)
Profile A - optimal overall process
A) Original source/production quality: 3
B) Recording quality: 3
C) Mixing quality: 3
D) Mastering quality: 3
Profile B - un-optimal mastering process
A) Original source/production quality: 3
B) Recording quality: 3
C) Mixing quality: 3
D) Mastering quality: 1
Profile C - un-optimal production process
A) Original source/production quality: 1
B) Recording quality: 3
C) Mixing quality: 3
D) Mastering quality: 3
Outcome:
A)
3^(4/4) * 3^(3/4) * 3^(2/4) * 3^(1/4) = 3 * 2,2795070569547776419935632519636 * 1,7320508075688772935274463415059 * 1,316074012952492460819218901797 = 15,588457268119895641747017073553
B)
3^(4/4) * 3^(3/4) * 3^(2/4) * 1^(1/4) = 3 * 2,2795070569547776419935632519636 * 1,7320508075688772935274463415059 * 1 = 11,844666116572432147372970116173
C)
1^(4/4) * 3^(3/4) * 3^(2/4) * 3^(1/4) = 1 * 2,2795070569547776419935632519636 * 1,7320508075688772935274463415059 * 1,316074012952492460819218901797 = 5,1961524227066318805823390245176
It is this nature of music production, that engineers should focus on - to optimize the quality as early as possible.
Why I make this point, is because that soft - punch to hard - flat ratio is established very early in the overall production process. You should not try to make that happen in mastering (you might fool yourself not knowing that the best you can then achieve like that is 5 of 16).
This is the paradox of music production - you tend to improve the components that are practical and cheap to improve. Unfortunately that is a very limiting route. The music quality is unleashed by focusing much enough early enough.
