OT-Mastering

[soundtrack2life]

I was curious. . . .Recently when I mix I typically place a plugin on the master channel fader. Either a SSL 4K (UAD) or McDSP Analog Channel AC1. It kind of glues things together and dictates mix decisions. However if I was looking to have something mastered after I have everything set then remove the plugin? Or do I just mix through it and send that to a mastering house and just leave some headroom?
TIA
Joe

[Naturally Digital]

Or do I just mix through it and send that to a mastering house and just leave some headroom?Trust your ears. If that is the sound you like (the 'glue' effect) and you aren't crushing the signal too much on the master channel, then it shouldn't cause any problems in mastering.

[TotalSonic]

If a 2-bus compressor is giving you the actual balance, transient shape and tone you prefer on the mix then by all means you should use it - as it's giving you the actual sound of the mix. If instead it's something that's done only just to make the mix sound "louder" then it most likely should be taken off.

My only caution is that sometimes it's easy to over do these types of processes - and a lot of times compression plugins don't get as nice of an effect over the 2-bus as premium hardware does in my direct experience. So - you might want to provide the mix in 2 versions to the ME - one with the 2-bus compression left on, and a 2nd one without it. This way they can hear the effect you went for - and can make a judgement if the master will turn out better with or without it on the mix.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[studio-c]

Steve, I have a question. Just starting to get back into recording and mixing music. I've been brightening all my tracks as much as seems acceptable, but then when I A/B my rough mixes against some of the latest punk/pop type mixes, theirs just take your face off, and mine sounds just plain dull.

I've followed the loudness wars thing for years, but from the sidelines as I tend to do spoken word. But it seems the amount of processing I'd have to do to even be in the same universe as these mixes, seems unnatural.

I'm not even talking about, "just turn up the volume". My stuff is sucking, lol... Are you doing much energetic rock/pop/punk stuff? and if so, how extreme are you going with mastering?

Thanks! It's interesting getting back into this world :)

Scott

[TotalSonic]

Steve, I have a question. Just starting to get back into recording and mixing music. I've been brightening all my tracks as much as seems acceptable, but then when I A/B my rough mixes against some of the latest punk/pop type mixes, theirs just take your face off, and mine sounds just plain dull.

I've followed the loudness wars thing for years, but from the sidelines as I tend to do spoken word. But it seems the amount of processing I'd have to do to even be in the same universe as these mixes, seems unnatural.

To be honest I'm not really a fan of that type of sound - I generally prefer tracks that are more naturally dynamic and have a warmer high end - but if "loud and sheeny" is what someone is looking for I can certainly provide it for them - and have done so for a good number of releases I've mastered.



I'm not even talking about, "just turn up the volume". My stuff is sucking, lol... Are you doing much energetic rock/pop/punk stuff?

Yup - lots of rock, soul, punk, funk, hip-hop, reggae, house, electronic - along with acoustic, folk, chamber, gospel, jazz, and everything in between. I don't get in that much "pure pop" here though as most of my clients are in working in more eclectic genres - but I certainly keep up with what is happening sound-wise with recent releases, so if someone wants me to match current pop trends I can do it for them easily.


and if so, how extreme are you going with mastering?

It completely depends on the source mixes and the desires of the client. I have some clients that are looking for their mixes to be just better matched to each other but left essentially with the same sonic character that they already have, and I have some clients that want me to completely reshape their audio (including some who want me to get their tracks to have mind boggling high average levels while still keeping the integrity of the audio as much in tact as possible). There is a reason I've invested in a number of hardware processors though!

Again - my own preference is for music to be kept at more sensible levels than the hyper-limited releases that are often being put out now and hope that engineers continue to educate their clients on the downsides of participating in the "loudness war." http://www.turnmeup.org is one great site to refer folks to so that they can understand the issue.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Cary B. Cornett]

I'm not Steve (nor do I play him on TV), but I'll take a shot at this.

<rant>
I don't know how much "current" music you listen to. I don't listen to much of it, largely because the hyper-crushed sound that is so fashionable now usually ruins the listening experience for me. For that reason, I can't see using any recent pop/rock/hiphop CD as any kind of sonic benchmark. To be able to properly compare, I would have to apply the same kind of crushing overall processing to my work, after which.... well, what would be the point?

I have sometimes wished that I could get copies of the "unmastered" mixes of the recent stuff, as that might be fun to analyze.
</rant>

How much "top end" to put into a mix can be tricky. However, if the "brightness" of all the parts in the mix is consistent, the treble could always be boosted in mastering if need be. Then again, years ago at least one "big name" engineer (Roger Nichols, maybe?) said he was in the habit of slightly rolling off the top end on his monitors: of course, this would cause him to make his mixes brighter.

I guess the trick here is making things bright without making them harsh.

Vocals can present an interesting challenge here. Often the tone quality could use some extra "top", except for the sibilance problem with "SSS". Sometimes applying a de-esser can make the vocal sound funny. This is a place where a version of the old "upward compression" trick (I have heard it called "New York compression", I think) can be useful. The old way to do this was to mult the vocal to two different console channels. The first channel got whatever the usual treatment was. The second channel would have some serious top boost followed by heavy limiting, and it would then be sort of "snuck in" under the "main" channel to improve articulation without having either the crazy sibilance or the artifacts caused by "de-essing" the main channel.

I suppose a similar kind of process could be applied to other things. Upward compression, used in various ways, is one of favorite tricks for "punching up" a track or a submix. I have used it at times on vox, bass, and drums. SawStudio, with so many tracks and subs, lends itself well to this sort of "abuse" :p:cool:

Then again, I could also be so far behind the times (and sonic fashion) that you should just ignore all of the above and make everything go "SPLAT!" :eek::rolleyes::p:rolleyes:;)

edit:
Oh. I just saw Steve's answer, which is certainly more informed than mine. If anything I just said conflicts with his advice... just listen to Steve. I'm pretty sure I would!

[TotalSonic]

To quantify more what typically what types of processing happens in mastering a little more -
generally eq boosts and cuts are never that extreme - usually a 1/4dB to 1dB here and there as needed - although if need be this does get pushed farther. Occasionally eq's are applied across M/S rather than L/R.
Compression if needed is usually on the gentle side - lower ratio, higher threshold, longer attack, medium release being most typical - although again this can get pushed farther if needed as well. I'm not really a fan of parallel (aka "New York") compression for mastering, and it's very rare I ever use multiband compression unless there are serious issues in the mix (and a remix is not an option). De-essing does happen when needed in the mastering stage - although it's always better to address this only on the vox tracks during mixing if possible. Generally I try to keep the final limiters not doing that much gain reduction - and if the eq and dynamics are balanced correctly first this usually is not hard to get - unless of course the client is asking for full on crushed levels - in which case things that I'd rather avoid, like deliberately clipping, can come into play.

How much top end to have is easy enough to assess by fixing monitoring level and getting familiar with how tons of different sources sound in your monitors - and then start by getting it to where you like it - and then adjust this as needed to your client's preference (how bright something should be being a subjective and artistic call). I find one mistake that some home studio owners make is only listening to their own tracks through their studio monitors (which leads them to things like trips out into their car - where they do in fact spend time listening to lots of different music) - it's really important to spend some hours knowing how lots of different music generated from outside your studio sounds over your monitors so that you can know when things are actually sounding "right."

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bill Park]

I was curious. . . .Recently when I mix I typically place a plugin on the master channel fader. Either a SSL 4K (UAD) or McDSP Analog Channel AC1. It kind of glues things together and dictates mix decisions. However if I was looking to have something mastered after I have everything set then remove the plugin? Or do I just mix through it and send that to a mastering house and just leave some headroom?
TIA
Joe

Make it sound as good as you can, but gee it sure is nice to have a little room to work. Pushing the levels to the max should not have any affect on the sound.... it should sound the same with 3dB of headroom or 6 dB or 20dB.

[Cary B. Cornett]

I'm not really a fan of parallel (aka "New York") compression for mastering, ...
I should have been clearer in what I said before. I was focusing on Scott's question on mixing, and other than my rant about what most of the industry seems to demand from mastering engineers, that was all I intended to discuss. I personally feel a lot more comfortable commenting on mixing methods than on mastering technique, because I have spent very little time on mastering.
I also have a belief that it is better to work on compressing individual tracks than on processing the overall mix (I would rather leave "overall" processing to the mastering engineer, who is probably better equipped to do it justice).

That said, the best information I have found about "upward compression" (as well as the preferred name for it) comes from mastering engineer Bob Katz. (It's probably time for me to go back and re-read that material!)

[Dave Labrecque]

Cary,

Can you give us a quick example of "upward compression"? What is it and how is it achieved?

[Ian Alexander]

Cary,

Can you give us a quick example of "upward compression"? What is it and how is it achieved?
Check post #6 in this thread and here
http://www.sawstudiouser.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8824

[DominicPerry]

I've been brightening all my tracks as much as seems acceptable, but then when I A/B my rough mixes against some of the latest punk/pop type mixes, theirs just take your face off, and mine sounds just plain dull.

Scott

It's not a constructive comment, but, UUUUURRGGGGHHHH.
I hate that shrill high end. It's one of the reasons that I think I like vinyl so much. It's nothing to do with the superiority of the medium or limited frequency range, it's just the guys in the 60s and 70s (and parts of the 80s) didn't add 15dB of 12KHz.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Dominic

[TotalSonic]

It's not a constructive comment, but, UUUUURRGGGGHHHH.
I hate that shrill high end. It's one of the reasons that I think I like vinyl so much. It's nothing to do with the superiority of the medium or limited frequency range, it's just the guys in the 60s and 70s (and parts of the 80s) didn't add 15dB of 12KHz.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Dominic

Dominic -
Having come up with vinyl myself (and having been privileged to able to cut vinyl masters on one of the finest lathes ever made for a couple years) I totally agree with you. Main thing is that it's impossible to put the same amount of ultra-high frequencies on a vinyl record that you can for digital without the record either distorting on playback or worse yet completely smoking the cutter head as you are cutting the master! So a mechanical limitation actually led to "warmer" (and to my ear more pleasant) sound.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[TotalSonic]

Cary,

Can you give us a quick example of "upward compression"? What is it and how is it achieved?

"Upward compression" is just another name for parallel compression. Basically - compress the signal - and mix this in at a lower level with the uncompressed signal. I've used this in a few mixes on drum bus in order to gain density for what would have been otherwise a thin sounding recording - but other than that I have never really liked the sound of it.

Bob Katz has been a proponent of using parallel compression in mastering - but in most mastering studios it's not ever a widely used technique. Ironically the guy who wrote the most widely read book on mastering does a good number of things differently than about 95% of the other well known mastering engineers out there.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Cary B. Cornett]

"Upward compression" is just another name for parallel compression. Yep! I have a thing about terminology. I have also heard the technique referred to as "sidechain compression" which is a technically misleading name. "Parallel compression" is certainly a more technically accurate name, which is fine if you are a tech like me, but when I found Bob Katz's term, "upward compression", I said, "Yeah. I'll switch to calling it that." Why? Because it describes the effect in a way that is easier for a non-technical person to grasp.

Some few of the people I have met in this field are non-technical, and when I trot out technically accurate terms and explanations I can just see their eyes glaze over. So, when I can find a way to describe or explain a thing that doesn't sound too "technical" yet still makes sense.... well, let's just say that I like the people I sometimes help to be happy as well as properly informed (whenever that is actually possible :rolleyes: ).

[Bill Park]

There was an article a couple of years ago about a similar but different approach... the fellow explained what he did not like about parallel compression and then proceeded to explain the different technique.... i only quickly scanned the article, intending to get back to it, but I lost track of it and never did. I'd sure like to find ti again.

Ring any bells?

[Grekim]

When I relax and play my acoustic guitar, I never say, "gee if only I could add some more high end to this it would sound great." If you're not a guitarist, but an engineer who has to mic up a guitar (or whatever), you're probably not thinking, "man I can't wait to put an eq on this!"

So what goes wrong? Not to say that absolute purist reality is the way to go. But, how does it happen that we drift so far from it sometimes? Well, chances are most mics we use have a little high frequency lift to them.

Now, I have to think that a lot of new engineers, because I was guilty of this, use a cardioid too close to the source. With too much boom they percieve a lack of high end and crank the highs somewhere down the line to make up for the difference. I think the same happens in mixing. When instead we should be chipping away at the bottom, we're adding to the top.

The other issue may be that typical digital eq's never do a great job with the high end IMHO.

[Bill Park]

So what goes wrong? ...The other issue may be that typical digital eq's never do a great job with the high end IMHO.

I don't have a problem with eq, digital or analog. I always tend to use it in a subtractive fashion, and I'm absolutely never boosting something by more than 6 dB unless it is for an effect. A problem like that should have been addressed in tracking.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that digitally pushing and compressing levels makes the signal most unmusical and unlistenable. And add to that, multiple conversions as the signal gets sent back and forth to analog gear along the mixing process... gear that was never designed to handle the levels that we force through the circuitry. Maybe Neve designs will handle that level, but most consoles can't, and neither can compressors and eqs and such deal with +23 dB when they were designed to perform best at -20.

[Grekim]

I don't have a problem with eq, digital or analog. I always tend to use it in a subtractive fashion, and I'm absolutely never boosting something by more than 6 dB unless it is for an effect. A problem like that should have been addressed in tracking.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that digitally pushing and compressing levels makes the signal most unmusical and unlistenable. And add to that, multiple conversions as the signal gets sent back and forth to analog gear along the mixing process... gear that was never designed to handle the levels that we force through the circuitry. Maybe Neve designs will handle that level, but most consoles can't, and neither can compressors and eqs and such deal with +23 dB when they were designed to perform best at -20.
I think you're right. Pushing the levels to extremes seems to mess with everything. The multiple conversion business I think is no big deal though, at least with pro (open to interpretation) converters.
I like both additive and subtractive EQ. If the EQ can't be musical when boosting then it's probably junk :) But, I can't recall boosting more than a couple dB on a high shelf in a long time. I'm in the habit now of trying subtracting from the low end first.

[TotalSonic]

Chuck Zwicky posted files of audio sent through 60 rounds of median quality DA -> AD that can be downloaded from:
http://www.zmix.net/Converter***37;20Test/Converter%20Test.htm

Based on this I'd say multiple rounds of conversion is not the major culprit in degradation of audio these days.

I'd however agree that poor gain staging is in fact a factor as so many times I see people clipping digital gain stages to the point of degrading their signals.

As far as eq - good ones should work just as well cutting or boosting - and I don't think people need to be shy about using them if they get things to sound the way they want. i.e. A lot of those classic Beatles tracks were run with something like +9dB on the EMI console presence filters! If the recording was lacking then a properly set eq will actually make it sound more natural, not less. Obviously this can be pushed to make creative production effects if so desired as well. Having said that I do need to note again that it's rare that I ever boost or cut more than a couple dB's per band.

And further on the other hand - good mic choice & placement, instrument choice, performance technique, and room can make having to add eq unnecessary. If someone finds themselves needing consistently the same extreme eq settings all the time I'd say they should check their monitoring first, and the methods of recording their sources (including the room and instruments themselves) second.

Best regards,
Steve Berson