Mastering A Mastered Track?

[dvyce]

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.

I am going to try to explain to you the issues with what you are saying...

{NOTE: for the purposes of this discussion I am going to refer to the instrumental as a "compressed" rather than "mastered" track, because that is really the essence of what we are talking about.}

Compressing the vocal and putting it on top of the previously "mastered" track will NOT make it sound like they were compressed together.

This is conceptually the same as how compressing individual kick, snare, hat, shaker and tambourine tracks will not give you the same effect as compressing all the drums/percussion together.

In the places where the vocals peak above the compressor threshold, the compressor will lower the peak level and in the process, lower the instrumental level, too.

You can even do this so the instrumental is 100% below the threshold and the compressor only kicks in when the vocal pops above the desired level... but the fact is, compressing each *separately* is very different from compressing both *together*...




Another issue here is overall level...

Just because your instrumental was compressed/mastered to make it as loud as possible does not mean your *new* mix will be that loud.

The fact is, the level of the instrumental has been *lowered* to accommodate the vocal in the mix.

You will want to bring the overall level *back up*...




...and to "master" or compress your new mix, does not mean you hace to "squash it to hell and back"... you can compress softly... you can just barely touch the peaks... you do not have to squash it again...

 

[dvyce]

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.

yes, that is a very good analogy.

 

[dvyce]

The first 2 replies you got were the best answers. If the instrumental is already mastered then why touch it.

for the reasons in my previous post.

You're prolly gonna end up doing more harm to it anyways seeing as your asking this question.

These people posting here are not talking about "real" mastering, anyway.

The truth is, they are likely doing more harm than good just by their "mastering" in the first place.

Not necessarily.

(but if you are talking about the "mastering" that so many people do where they just go into their list of presets and choose the one that is called "mastering".... well, then *everything* they master uses the same exact chain!)

 

[dvyce]

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

Turn the beat down, add the vocals and "master" as if it were just a final mix.

That is the most professional way.

(there may be some volume automation of the instrumental you should be doing, too... think of this like a new mix... you still need to blend the vocals in with the instrumental)


Here is something else to think about:

You make a song using samples from "professional" songs... You use samples from CD's that have already been mastered.

You record vocals and put them on top of your instrumental made from parts of songs which have been mastered already...

After you have mixed your song which is made up of "mastered" sample and your new vocal, do you "master" the final mix of your song?

Of course you do.


...and the instrumental in the original example is just a big long sample.

 

[dvyce]

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.

Actually, *you* are the only one who is confused by, and arguing about, the language of it...

I (and others) are talking specifically about the issue at hand.

 

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

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

Instrumentals aren't "already mastered." I think all the arguing in this thread is out of people being misinformed to what "mastering" itself is.

A song can be mixed hot(for lack of better wording)meaning that limiting was used in the mix to add loudness while draining the dynamics and making it ready for commercial release, but soon as you add it to a pile of songs that haven't been treated in the same way, it is no longer anything but an obstacle in your new project that will need to be treated as any other track in the mastering phase.

Mastering is not "permanent" in the sense that "once something is "mastered" it's always mastered. Mastering is the final stage of a music project. So once I take a song from an old Beatles Record that was finalized for a release(mastered)and couple it with a Nirvanna song done the same way, both tracks will need to be "mastered" for the new project.

As Dvyce has said, "Digital Remastering" is the art of taking old audio that was processed years ago for other medias, and getting it in the rawest form you possibly can(usually raw multitracked sessions)and mastering it to sound equivalent to a current recording.

There are numerous ways to take and overprocessed song and add new life to it. To start, you're going to want to turn down the volume on the over processed track for headroom. Afterwards, you have room to EQ, widen the stereo, reduce noise, compress, filter, ect. to even it out to the point it goes well with your added vocals/instrumentation.

Once done, you have a well mixed song that will be ready for mastering with the rest of your project upon completion.

 

[LostProfit]

Actually, *you*

My original point was that, if he was given the master copy then he would be able to re-master it.

You aren't really adressing the issue at hand any more than me by saying "yeah just mix it" in so many words.

The issue for me is that, if this project is intended to have these vocals then why doesn't the OP have the original multi-track to work from?

If they don't exist then he is using the only master mp3/wav/whatever copy.

 

[Morning_Star]

I am going to try to explain to you the issues with what you are saying...

{NOTE: for the purposes of this discussion I am going to refer to the instrumental as a "compressed" rather than "mastered" track, because that is really the essence of what we are talking about.}

Compressing the vocal and putting it on top of the previously "mastered" track will NOT make it sound like they were compressed together.

This is conceptually the same as how compressing individual kick, snare, hat, shaker and tambourine tracks will not give you the same effect as compressing all the drums/percussion together.

In the places where the vocals peak above the compressor threshold, the compressor will lower the peak level and in the process, lower the instrumental level, too.

You can even do this so the instrumental is 100% below the threshold and the compressor only kicks in when the vocal pops above the desired level... but the fact is, compressing each *separately* is very different from compressing both *together*...




Another issue here is overall level...

Just because your instrumental was compressed/mastered to make it as loud as possible does not mean your *new* mix will be that loud.

The fact is, the level of the instrumental has been *lowered* to accommodate the vocal in the mix.

You will want to bring the overall level *back up*...




...and to "master" or compress your new mix, does not mean you hace to "squash it to hell and back"... you can compress softly... you can just barely touch the peaks... you do not have to squash it again...

Ok, you try that with an overly squished track like dance or southern hip-hop and your vocals will have no power or cut through the mix. I've been doing it this way and your way for a long time and I know what sounds best and what works. I used to do it that way until I tried it this way and my way is far superior. That may work for lightly compressed instrumentals but it doesn't work on the dynamic ruined tracks I have seen brought into the studio.

It's ok though. I'm going to do a tutorial soon on this very thing and i will show everyone the difference it makes.