DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Recording: Mastering Seems to Take a Forever

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > Music: Recording

Mastering Seems to Take a Forever

EchoMinor	Date: March 26, 2006 @ 3:24 AM anyone seem to have this issue sometimes? i finally got audition and my new PODxt running to my liking but it seems that my latest track has taken me from 10pm-3:16pm to master right. seems i mix it down, and find something that is fuckedup and in need of repair...i fix that "was the kick drum being too basy" mix down again and then! something else getting on my nerves....change that "guitar part1 too underpowered" still not the way i like it, perhaps i am too picky? man i wish cigarettes!
EchoMinor	Date: March 26, 2006 @ 3:25 AM miss cigarettes, not wish
mattbanx	Date: March 26, 2006 @ 4:03 AM I hav'nt even got to mastering yet. They're all like work tapes, or wave work tracks in my case. I would like to take my work tracks and get rid of the white noise and whatever other muddy sounds there is. I can't hear it on my dinosaur rig too much. But I remember trying to take cassette tapes I recorded on before I was on the net and rented a studio to mix them. A lot I could not hear that I heard when it was put through a studio mixer. I can just about imagine how lo fi recordings might sound. I would like to find something that could take out the background hiss and not lose the music. I try to get ahold of a computer with a cable connection, usually at the library before I post an mp3. But all our computers are different. The original recording always sounds more clear though. Mp3's in a lot of ways is still very limited. I stay at 128 kbs, because the sound flaws are actually more appearant in my recordings at a higher bit rate. But I can only guess, because I have not learned about the engineering side of it.
leedsquietman	Date: March 26, 2006 @ 9:16 PM I haven't seen anyone really like Audition's mastering capabilities, although it has nice graphical tools and plug-ins like multi-band compression etc. which should make it useable for mastering to a degree at least. People rate it more highly for it's audio recording and bang for buck. Maybe better plug-ins can help (as in Cubase, the Steinberg Mastering Edition gives you some of the best Wavelabe plug-ins and spectrographs etc. missing from the default Cubase SX stock plugs). Obviously if you have 300 - 600 bucks to spare then a solution like Wavelab (search out Wavelab 5, wavelab 6 is now out and 5 is on sale at many outlets and believe me, wavelab 5 is an awesome tool, frequently use it at my buddy's house. Sony SOundforge 8 is great if you are mastering 2 track stereo and Samplitude 8 mastering edition allows 4 tracks - good for mastering with seperations) Peace, maybe as you get more familiar with Audition, you will get better results from it for mastering.
EchoMinor	Date: March 27, 2006 @ 12:12 AM well my latest tune, which is my first using Audition aswell as my new PODxt is almost finished. bout to take 3versions out into the car and see if they are ok. did manage to get their db levels at a nice range. but i cant buy anything else lol so im stuck with it for now on its own. wife bout murdered me for buying a PODxt, gonna completely murder me when i tell her i need the foot controller now...
leedsquietman	Date: March 27, 2006 @ 12:16 AM yeah, lol - you'd better start bringing breakfast in bed and prepare for a couple of nights of Beaches or other chick flicks to pull that one off!
ATC1	Date: March 29, 2006 @ 11:41 PM Based on your description, Four-Calendar, I'm not sure if you're talking about the mixing process or the mastering process. The mix process for a standard pop tune with ten or twelve discrete instruments (and multiple tracks containing alternate takes of some instruments that must be comped) usually takes at least eight hours to do really meticulously, and often as long as sixteen--and that's if all the tracks are good to start. That is to say, if you get into editing the timing of individual notes or trying to fix any aspect of the performance after it is recorded (performance as opposed to recording quality), you may be looking at a week per song. It really depends on how meticulous you are and how close to your standards the performance comes. As for recording quality, this is another sand-trap of which to beware, and it is two-fold: How good is your initial recording quality, and how good are your editor and plug-ins? Don't spend ten hours trying to squeeze out clarity and presence that were never in the cards to begin with. I've worked with really nice gear and I've worked with total crap. Tracks recorded with proper technique, on good-sounding instruments, in good-sounding spaces, with good gear will sometimes fall into a mix almost by themselves. If you're an electronic musician, the quality of your sound banks is key, and more variable than you might think. For weeks I wondered why I couldn't get good hip-hop beats out of the Fruity Loops drum banks, until I uploaded a bunch of other drum samples and realized almost immediately that the new samples blew the old ones away. As for the quality of your processors, even good tracks will fall far short of their potential if you put them through crappy compressors and EQs. All parametric EQs, for instance are not the same. Although I haven't done side by side comparisons in later versions of Cubase, in VST 5 (which seems to have the same compressors and EQ's as SX 3, based on a cursory glance), the packaged-in compressors and EQ's don't hold a candle to those that come in the Waves bundles I've seen. Beware, especially of multiband compressors, which can be just about the most useful thing in the world, but are often crap-tastic. Almost any time you use a processor, you get some undesireable effect. In the case of a compressor, for instance, you actually trade on a curve. Aside from the obvious boost in the noise floor, you sacrifice crispness, sharpness of attacks, and dynamic range in order to gain volume, presence and dynamic consistency--and there is a sweet spot on the curve where you have gotten the most efficient rate of exchange for your purposes. When I have used inferior audio processors, I have had to sacrifice more to get less. Then, upon comparing my mixes to blockbuster commercial mixes, I found myself dissatisfied and continued tweaking for hours--I could not even approach the professional standard of loudness without destroying the clarity, and when I tweaked to get the clarity back, I lost some level. When I tried to get my clarity back or add presence with inferior EQs, the frustrantion usually deepened. Now, I suppose I got a lot of ear training out of all of this insanity, so perhaps you should just spend hours upon hours tweaking tracks, too. Also, the point of all this is not "go out and spend ten grand on gear". Rather, it is: Tweak until it is no longer efficient, and spending a day on a mix just means you've got patience, which is half of skill. Even now after all the work I've done in this area, I still have a hard time knowing when I've reached a point where I'm just never going to hear exactly what I want and I should leave well-enough alone. As for Mastering: Well, I'm not a mastering engineer, but I dabble in it. Yeah. That takes a while, too.
leedsquietman	Date: March 30, 2006 @ 1:59 PM Good post atc, you talk a lot of sense. Multi-band compressors can certainly be overused and are not always a benefit. Like your points about the recording process. The versions of the plug-ins have been upgraded in cubase sx. They've been upgraded even since sx 2 to 3 in some cases, check the version numbers. I know that in cubase se (based on cubase sx 1.06) most of the plugins sound better in sx3/nuendo, especially the reverb a and b, they also all have higher version numbers - even though they usually look the same. Most people would agree that the cubase stock plugs are not the best around, as in the case of most DAW plugs (and consensus is Sonar, Logic and Samplitude offer slightly better effects and mastering plugs), but many of us can't afford the waves plugs (which have also been criticized in some areas, only the L2 and L3 seem to be universally accepted as 'must have') and I wouldn't get cracked plugs - the stock cubase plugs are decent enough for home applications. As for mastering, it would be great to have a mastering room with all the hardware and stuff, that would be fantastic !! Unfortunately for me, my dreams are limited to owning Wavelab, so I don't have to keep bringing music to my buddies house and bugging him to let me use his computer so I can wavelab the mix !! Honestly, for home recordings, wavelab or equivalent programs can really do quite a lot and if I ever had visions of grandeur and believed my stuff was pro quality, I would pay the bucks to have a pro with his nice room and all those racks of super expensive compressors etc. do the mastering work for me!
hueseph	Date: April 1, 2006 @ 2:38 AM Multiband compression is generally used to try to fix what should have been done right in the mix before mastering. I think it's just a gimmick for the most part. there are few applications where it can really work well. Either you have an exceptional multiband compressor or you have a tool that is more likely to mess up your mix than anything. Personally, I think you should stay away from mulitband comps unless you're absolutely positive what your desired effect is. If you go into a mastering project wanting to use whatever tools are at hand you're likely to mess it up more than anything. Tools should be used to fix problems and as with most things "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Get the mix down as good as you can get it. If it needs to be tweaked afterward fine. If not, leave it. Again the whole purpose of mastering gets lost with so many people. What is mastering? Why is it called mastering? Well simply put, the intention is to make a master. File/CD/MP3/Tape. The purpose is to create the master media from which all other copies will be made. So, mastering entails more than just tweaking sound. It involves balancing volume levels between tracks, labelling, balancing eq between tracks, developing a consistancy in tonality, amplitude, and overall presentation or mood. In otherwords taking a bunch of tracks and making them sound like an album.
leedsquietman	Date: April 1, 2006 @ 10:22 AM definately...a lot of people confuse mixing with mastering...
rand0mher00	Date: July 13, 2006 @ 8:24 AM I'm getting really pissed off..My tracks have this anoying hiss in them, I've tried everything to try and stop it.Its not as bad as it was though I simply turned down the mic volume, Its messing up all of my recordings.Anyone no how you could prevent THE HISSING.
LChen	Date: January 22, 2007 @ 3:54 PM I know what you mean, EchoMinor! I feel like every time I listen to the song I'm trying to fix up, there's always something that needs changing. I had a song which I spent hours trying to make listenable, only to come back the next day to completely change what I'd done the day before. I keep finding something wrong, so it still remains unmastered.
meloddot	Date: January 27, 2007 @ 8:22 PM u guys are great... hey listen guys seriously im selling the WAVES DIAMOND BUNDLE for only $100 bucks i have version 4.5 so you dont need that stupid dongle key..lol...if your interested give me a call or send me a message on aim and well talk...be advised its only for pc..so sorry mac dudes...hit me up...Jstribling3@aol.com...7184556906 -jamel www.myspace.com/melodsbeats
shadowself	Date: January 27, 2007 @ 8:30 PM dude... are you actually trying to SELL pirated software?
leedsquietman	Date: January 27, 2007 @ 10:38 PM waves charge US$123.70 dollars to transfer a license on legitimate software...
shadowself	Date: January 27, 2007 @ 11:39 PM Ya, and that bundle is thousands of dollars.
meloddot	Date: January 28, 2007 @ 11:32 AM like i said i have it...if u want it call me...this is not pirated or anything...plenty of people have bought it for me...pit it this way its a mistake made by h20, not me...i have version 4.5 no dongle or licenses needed...they are just the plugins they work wonderfully...... l2 the l3..white noise remover..and a ton more, i would put myself out herelike this if it wasnt worth you guys getting..now if u spent $1000 bucks on it already and have it...dont respond good for you for going broke...if you want it for $100 buck THEN CALL ME...no dont send me money...no this isnt a scam..call and talk to the actuall HUMAN BEING who has it...your choice... 7184556906 -jamel.. or hit me up on aim.. jstribling3@aol.com
GeneHilbert	Date: January 28, 2007 @ 12:21 PM Fucking Incredible........
leedsquietman	Date: January 28, 2007 @ 1:12 PM h20 are crackers who crack cubase and many other things, it's warez software that you can get for the price of a cd-r and shipping from some companies... just because they put up the logo 'try before you buy - if you like this software go buy it' doesn't make it any less of a crack. Their cracked versions of cubase don't work that well, so I doubt that the waves plugs will function 100% either...
Opossum	Date: January 28, 2007 @ 1:18 PM Brave man giving out his phone #... http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/tlg/260650191.html
Opossum	Date: January 28, 2007 @ 1:19 PM http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/tlg/260357417.html
Opossum	Date: January 28, 2007 @ 1:24 PM On 28th Jan 2008, GeneHilbert said: Fucking Incredible........ Well, now I have a map of his place that I didn't really need. Marcus Garvey Blvd?
leedsquietman	Date: January 28, 2007 @ 1:46 PM At least he's selling it for 100 dollars less than some guy is trying to sell for on the ABleton forum, he wants 200 dollars for his pirate software.... I mean, if you want to get a H20 crack, then that's a personal choice but pay for pirate software? all you have to do is surf the p2p networks/torrents and burn an .iso to a cd-r ... but remember, spyware is often lurking and if not, the cracks can range from not functioning fully to requiring you to do a total HD restore, my buddy got the h20 crack of cubase sx2 and after deciding he wanted to buy it could not uninstall the original software completely and his registry and HDD were f*****. you can get many great plugins that are almost as good as the waves bundle for free or for cheap. For example, I much prefer Voxengo's Elephant 2.5 volume maximiser/mastering limiter to Waves L2 and it costs 60 bucks. Waves plugins are good but you pay A LOT for the convenience of having a group of plugins all in one handy bundle. I understand WHY people use cracks and I'm not against the 'try before you buy' concept if you do eventually buy but remember - cracks usually don't function properly, they cannot be registered, you cannot upgrade/update them, you will get no tech support and in the event of the software trashing your computer you the liability is totally yours...
LegoBreaks	Date: January 29, 2007 @ 4:55 PM Does Anyone use Isotope Ozone? It's pretty good at mastering , i prefer it over the waves packs
RichLum	Date: March 12, 2007 @ 11:16 PM It is also important to know your monitors you are using for mixing. Over time you will get to know how a mix will sound on other systems and be able to produce a balanced mix that translates well to the car, hi-fi, headphones etc. In the mean time as part of the learning process you should listen to commercial CDs you are very familiar with on your monitors and also play back your mixes on other systems (car, hifi, headphones etc.) so that you gradually learn how to get a balanced mix on your monitors. I used to do about 10 or 15 mixes, burning each one to CD and listening in the car and hi fi and then go back and tweak to get a good mix. These days I can get a better mix than back then in 2 or 3 mixes. (And I'm just recording my songs in my bedroom - not as a job or anything) There isn't really any magic formula except practice. Rich
leedsquietman	Date: March 12, 2007 @ 11:29 PM Practice makes perfect as they say ! Agree totally, make a rough mix or two (emphasizing some different qualities such as shelving some high or low freqs, or more compressed mixes etc) and demo on on your monitors, headphones, boombox, car stereo etc. and then note what is being over emphasized (and under emphasized) in each unit for each mix. Your final mix will be a compromise to sound relatively good in all devices. Also check phase cancellation etc, you don't want things to disappear from your mix if it gets into a mono situation. And remember don't pan things 100% wide left or right, if using headphones, they don't reproduce the final 6 or 7 % properly and you get a weird effect and some things can totally disappear from the mix that wide (it's not good through monitor speakers either) It's no good if the mix sounds great in your monitors or headphones but dog rough elsewhere. Most people will be listening to your music in a car stereo, mini hifi system or PC Speakers, so you need to ensure it will sound OK there. Only a tiny percentage will have a super nice hifi or professional grade headphone biampliers and expensive headphones ! Finally, try not to suck the life out your mixes by over compression. Compression is your friend if used properly but will just suck the dynamics out of your music if you overly limit or compress, it takes some work pumping up the RMS level to commercial levels and retaining dynamics, this is why mastering engineers are in business and seemingly making a reasonable living !
RichLum	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 6:37 PM Couple of other things I thought of... 1. Once you think you have a good mix. Put it aside and go do something else and listen to it again the next day. It is easy to lose perspective when listening to the same song over and over again whilst mixing. Listening with a fresh set of ears the next day can sometimes expose some glaring holes or in your face elements. 2. Don't just listen to your mix sitting dead centre in your monitor or headphones. Get up and walk around. Walk into another room and see how it sounds coming through from the other room etc. Not many people will sit dead centre in the stereo field when listening to music (unless they are using headphones). Most are moving about doing other things rich
ndstgmoe	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 7:55 PM Be careful not to have the volume up too loud when mixing also. A lot of mixes will sound better when they're louder, but if you get it to a background music level, it sounds like shit. It's always good to reference lower levels - a lot of times, there will be a "dim" switch somewhere on whatever you're monitering through that reduces the gain by like 20dB. Its amazing how different stuff can sound with less volume.... At times, I'll have what I think is a decent mix going, hit the dim, and then all I can hear is guitar, or bass, or you get the picture. Going off what Rich said - setting aside a mix for a while - this can even be a five minute cigarette break every hour or so. Or listen to a reference cd that is similar to what you are trying to emulate. Definitely learn yer monitors. It's vital. Good posts here so far... Oh.. this thread is a year old...