|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 31, 2022 22:22:26 GMT -6
Mixes where you go, “well,damn…I don’t have to do much here.” Like to the point that you’re a little worried about justifying your expense? Just curious. I respect what you guys do, and find it somewhat a voodoo that makes what I do sound better every time. I guess I’m also just asking how you define what you do in the process. What do you want from a mix/client? What are three things I can do to deliver you the best canvas to work with?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2022 4:23:37 GMT -6
Mixes where you go, “well,damn…I don’t have to do much here.” Like to the point that you’re a little worried about justifying your expense? Just curious. I guess I’m also just asking how you define what you do in the process. What do you want from a mix/client? What are three things I can do to deliver you the best canvas to work with? I suppose it depends on what level you work at but years back when I worked in the indie / metal scene that never happened. Sorry if this is a bit long winded.. I've used a fair amount of brick walls in either HW or SW format and they all affect songs in different ways. The more volume the client required (which in modern(ish) pop / rock was common) the worse it got. I had the equipment to enhance (or correct) several parts of a song and embark on a journey of technical analysis to ensure compatibility across a wide variety of playback mediums. A lot of spectral analysis, phase coherency checks etc. Consistency across albums is important and yes I know albums aren't really a thing today but you want some quality based similarities across numerous singles no? Then there's the metadata stuff and export testing. Mastering for me was as much a technical trait as it was an artistry thang.. Also ME's are the final QC check before a song goes out into the world, sure I might master my own stuff mostly nowadays but in decades gone if I'd mixed a track it nearly always went to a separate ME (budget allowing of course). Decent mastering HW and rooms are expensive, VERY expensive and whilst Ozone does the trick sometimes it's an added expense to a mixing house which isn't necessary. Even in my less than amazing compared to a dedicated mastering house home studio the 2 bus chain is a Gainlabs Empress ($2.5K), Neve 33609 ($4K), Bettermaker Mastering Limiter ($2.3K) and some Dynaudio Core 59's ($5.3K) plus however much in treatment. So, how many tracks could you get mastered for $25K+? Again my setup is far from the best I've seen and is intended just for my own stuff. What would I want from a mix client? 1. Communication & co-operation, revisions aren't a failure they're just one step closer to a better end product. 2. Decent balance and proper EQ, I can split a track M/S and fix issues with recessed muddy guitars or multi-band a stereo instrument that's a bit wild. I cannot however split mid instruments apart and EQ them without affecting other parts. Neither can I raise the volume without affecting another part, if something is muddy across the mid section that's no issue but in other words I can't essentially remix the entire track for you. 3. Go easy on the 2-bus.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 1, 2022 8:03:58 GMT -6
Part of expertise is knowing to do nothing, consultation expertise costs something. I can think of a handful of articles about records coming through Bernie Grundmans/etc that were flat transfers.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 1, 2022 9:43:54 GMT -6
To me, the key to mastering is monitoring. Everything you do makes some aspects better and others worse. It's always a tradeoff. As mix monitors have improved, I've found myself dealing less with eq. and more with noise and distortion.
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Aug 1, 2022 10:28:53 GMT -6
Mixes where you go, “well,damn…I don’t have to do much here.” Like to the point that you’re a little worried about justifying your expense? Just curious. I respect what you guys do, and find it somewhat a voodoo that makes what I do sound better every time. I guess I’m also just asking how you define what you do in the process. What do you want from a mix/client? What are three things I can do to deliver you the best canvas to work with? Usually, even with awesome mixes, I can still do some sonic enhancing (voodoo) that makes it worth it to my clients. That's where the ole analog chain comes in handy. Also, being able to get the desired loudness without messing it up is a skill unto itself that many clients appreciate. Once in a while I'll get a mix of a single that sounds great and has already been "mastered" by the mix engineer, and no non-limited version is available. I've told some of them that they could just release it as is. But if it's a collection of songs then usually I can justify my fee by at least making them go together cohesively and setting song spacing and such. And preparing a DDP or vinyl sides. As far as what to send me - just the best mix possible and please no clipping or limiting. If you have any specific wishes then please let me know before I start. Thanks for asking!
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Aug 1, 2022 10:32:35 GMT -6
It's still my dream and goal to have a mastering engineer say he did nothing but a flat transfer. I've gotten close, but still he's able to add a little something I am missing. Good/great mastering engineers are worth it. I love having another set of trusted ears on a final mix.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Aug 1, 2022 10:48:16 GMT -6
I struggle with Mastering myself which is why I’ve never been able to charge anybody for it. I generally will spend 2 hours doing something I think helps it out only to take another hour screwing it up and then realizing I haven’t been able to get it loud enough for the client without added some distortion to the track and messing up the balance I was given. My strengths are elsewhere and I’ve realized that so I almost never do it and always hand it off to a pro with a better room, better monitors, better specified equipment, better ears, and more experience/know how.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2022 11:04:59 GMT -6
There’s nothing like a 1 db box cut and good high pass filter on a digital mix to increase headroom even if they already had a limiter on the two bus.
With limited mixes that are much done, lots of guys are still using aliased bullshit with imd near dc so a very low high pass filter always cleans up things. Then they’re often clipping so you can lower volume slightly, tell them to turn it up 1 more, and on their mostly low headroom converters that hard clip at -1 to 0dbfs , it will sound a lot better.
If they like the sound of their converters clipping like that, just distort it slightly and make it not clip true peak.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Aug 1, 2022 13:12:44 GMT -6
I struggle with Mastering myself which is why I’ve never been able to charge anybody for it. I generally will spend 2 hours doing something I think helps it out only to take another hour screwing it up and then realizing I haven’t been able to get it loud enough for the client without added some distortion to the track and messing up the balance I was given. My strengths are elsewhere and I’ve realized that so I almost never do it and always hand it off to a pro with a better room, better monitors, better specified equipment, better ears, and more experience/know how. Eric Broyhill told me he made the move to mastering because he did better work when he worked quickly. I found that really interesting, like absent the navel gazing that can be baked into tracking and mixing he was essentially more effective. (I’m totally paraphrasing and this was like 10 years ago).
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Aug 1, 2022 13:54:48 GMT -6
Not really though I doubt my clients are what you'd call "pro mixers" ha. But Certainly not in a heavy handed way. Not everything needs EQ/Compression/Distortion/ect. But a lot usually need a bit of denoising. And then the assembly and meta data side is always done which I think is worth it.
Sometimes all it takes is level matching the tracks of the project to get some kind of consistency. There are tons of examples that are out there that are flat transfers basically.
I'd agree, good communication. But more then that, just work on building a relationship. Helps to work with someone for more than 1-2 projects to get to know what they do and what you want them to do ect.
And headroom is alllllwaaayyyys helpful!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 1, 2022 15:21:24 GMT -6
Not really though I doubt my clients are what you'd call "pro mixers" ha. But Certainly not in a heavy handed way. Not everything needs EQ/Compression/Distortion/ect. But a lot usually need a bit of denoising. And then the assembly and meta data side is always done which I think is worth it. Sometimes all it takes is level matching the tracks of the project to get some kind of consistency. There are tons of examples that are out there that are flat transfers basically. I'd agree, good communication. But more then that, just work on building a relationship. Helps to work with someone for more than 1-2 projects to get to know what they do and what you want them to do ect. And headroom is alllllwaaayyyys helpful! What LUFS is good headroom?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2022 19:26:12 GMT -6
Eric Broyhill told me he made the move to mastering because he did better work when he worked quickly. I found that really interesting, like absent the navel gazing that can be baked into tracking and mixing he was essentially more effective. (I’m totally paraphrasing and this was like 10 years ago). I'm the same, I go ear blind too quickly. I much prefer mastering to mixing..
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Aug 1, 2022 21:02:38 GMT -6
Not really though I doubt my clients are what you'd call "pro mixers" ha. But Certainly not in a heavy handed way. Not everything needs EQ/Compression/Distortion/ect. But a lot usually need a bit of denoising. And then the assembly and meta data side is always done which I think is worth it. Sometimes all it takes is level matching the tracks of the project to get some kind of consistency. There are tons of examples that are out there that are flat transfers basically. I'd agree, good communication. But more then that, just work on building a relationship. Helps to work with someone for more than 1-2 projects to get to know what they do and what you want them to do ect. And headroom is alllllwaaayyyys helpful! What LUFS is good headroom? I wouldn't say LUFS is a good way to measure headroom. I mean more peaks. So if you didn't mix with a limiter and gave a mix with 1-6dB of headroom. Thats the dream. Not very common for people to mix without a limiter. But let's say you slapped on on there for the client to hear. No problem. Send both so the engineer knows what you and the client have been listening too. But I'd you want to go by LUFS I'd say shoot for -19. Lots of room there for getting to -14 or up to -10 if needed.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 1, 2022 22:08:37 GMT -6
What LUFS is good headroom? I wouldn't say LUFS is a good way to measure headroom. I mean more peaks. So if you didn't mix with a limiter and gave a mix with 1-6dB of headroom. Thats the dream. Not very common for people to mix without a limiter. But let's say you slapped on on there for the client to hear. No problem. Send both so the engineer knows what you and the client have been listening too. But I'd you want to go by LUFS I'd say shoot for -19. Lots of room there for getting to -14 or up to -10 if needed. Man, most country releases are like -6
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Aug 1, 2022 22:22:18 GMT -6
I wouldn't say LUFS is a good way to measure headroom. I mean more peaks. So if you didn't mix with a limiter and gave a mix with 1-6dB of headroom. Thats the dream. Not very common for people to mix without a limiter. But let's say you slapped on on there for the client to hear. No problem. Send both so the engineer knows what you and the client have been listening too. But I'd you want to go by LUFS I'd say shoot for -19. Lots of room there for getting to -14 or up to -10 if needed. Man, most country releases are like -6 dammmmmmn. That's wild. I don't do most things past -10. But I guess would and could if needed. So much for the loudness wars being over.
|
|
|
Post by crillemannen on Aug 2, 2022 2:23:35 GMT -6
I just send a mix to master, first mix I did for a client on my Hedd type 20 mkII. The mastering engineer said he didn't have to EQ it at all. Just added some energy, which felt like it was most about low-end energy to my ears. Nothing drastic at all.
That's quite the pay for 1h of work. But I don't see mastering as something artistically. It's about quality check. I hate it when you receive a master that has been tampered with to much. To many cheap tricks going around, hype topend, steteo widening. I have heard so many bad masters.. Yuck!
Maybe mastering engineers get bored and starts to get creative, that's how it feels sometimes atleast.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,809
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Aug 2, 2022 8:02:17 GMT -6
To me, the key to mastering is monitoring. Everything you do makes some aspects better and others worse. It's always a tradeoff. As mix monitors have improved, I've found myself dealing less with eq. and more with noise and distortion. And with those big old Duntechs you hear it all and as dynamic as anything out there sir Bob.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 2, 2022 8:15:16 GMT -6
To me, the key to mastering is monitoring. Everything you do makes some aspects better and others worse. It's always a tradeoff. As mix monitors have improved, I've found myself dealing less with eq. and more with noise and distortion. Good to hear from you, Bob.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 2, 2022 9:32:59 GMT -6
My dream would be if an online mastering engineer spent extra time listening to the mix, had great customer service and picked up the phone, and really let themselves get deep into the song, mix, lyrics, before touching anything. Maybe they even want to know the band bio. Our perceptions are based on so many factors.
Maybe they just got done mastering a super loud hip hop masterpiece where everything is over produced and slammin, they are all amped up from that and then they put on my folk rock track with room mics and they wish they could change the channel. But they work through it anyway, because they need to make money, it comes out way too loud and bright and they are just happy to move on. Then you ask them for a revision, their gonna say it needs to be remixed. I know this happens a lot these days
Now imagine attending the session, the guy sees you.. you tell him about the song, he builds a backstory, his mind can connect to the song, and it’s going to go a different route with you there
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Aug 2, 2022 10:20:47 GMT -6
I struggle with Mastering myself which is why I’ve never been able to charge anybody for it. I generally will spend 2 hours doing something I think helps it out only to take another hour screwing it up and then realizing I haven’t been able to get it loud enough for the client without added some distortion to the track and messing up the balance I was given. My strengths are elsewhere and I’ve realized that so I almost never do it and always hand it off to a pro with a better room, better monitors, better specified equipment, better ears, and more experience/know how. Eric Broyhill told me he made the move to mastering because he did better work when he worked quickly. I found that really interesting, like absent the navel gazing that can be baked into tracking and mixing he was essentially more effective. (I’m totally paraphrasing and this was like 10 years ago). One of my favorite things about switching to all mastering is that I get to work on a lot of tracks for a short time each. Instant gratification. It's fun to work off my initial impression of a song/mix instead of hearing it hundreds of times. I like to work fairly quickly to not lose that fresh take effect. Only if a mix is problematic do I need to spend more than 30 minutes on it. If I spent 2 hours mastering a track then I'm sure I would have lost perspective and overworked it.
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Aug 2, 2022 10:30:00 GMT -6
Man, most country releases are like -6 dammmmmmn. That's wild. I don't do most things past -10. But I guess would and could if needed. So much for the loudness wars being over. Definitely not over. Just check Spotify "new releases" with normalization turned off. -6 LUFS is a common max short term LUFS these days, with integrated LUFS coming in around -8. I don't master to the meters but I often end up about 1 to 2dB softer than that while maintaining good punch and dynamic feel. Most clients are happy with that loudness. If the tone is balanced and lively then you don't need quite as much limiting.
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Aug 2, 2022 10:37:40 GMT -6
I hate it when you receive a master that has been tampered with to much. To many cheap tricks going around, hype topend, steteo widening. I have heard so many bad masters.. Yuck! This is easily avoided by communicating up front. Some clients want us to do a lot and they're disappointed if they don't hear much of a difference after mastering. Other clients are like "Don't mess with my mix." It's hard for MEs to read minds, though with experience we do get pretty good at guessing based on the mix provided. But if you have certain expectations then just say so and most MEs will respect them. If one doesn't, then there are plenty more fish in the sea.
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Aug 2, 2022 10:47:28 GMT -6
My dream would be if an online mastering engineer spent extra time listening to the mix, had great customer service and picked up the phone, and really let themselves get deep into the song, mix, lyrics, before touching anything. Maybe they even want to know the band bio. Our perceptions are based on so many factors. Maybe they just got done mastering a super loud hip hop masterpiece where everything is over produced and slammin, they are all amped up from that and then they put on my folk rock track with room mics and they wish they could change the channel. But they work through it anyway, because they need to make money, it comes out way too loud and bright and they are just happy to move on. Then you ask them for a revision, their gonna say it needs to be remixed. I know this happens a lot these days Now imagine attending the session, the guy sees you.. you tell him about the song, he builds a backstory, his mind can connect to the song, and it’s going to go a different route with you there Honestly that sounds more like the job of the mix engineer and producer. One of the benefits of using a ME is getting their fresh take on a track. You lose that if they immerse themselves in it before starting. IMO they should at least try one revision before suggesting a remix, unless it's something obviously mix-related. Attending the mastering session is a great way to make sure you get what you want. But again I suggest not filling the ME's head with preconceptions before he has a chance to get his initial impression. You can give all the input you want just by listening and giving feedback.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 2, 2022 10:55:34 GMT -6
I get it, but I disagree.
Music is art, from the creative side of the brain. Too much in the Analytical side sacrifices the artistic side.
End result sounds fine technically, but isn’t enjoyable. It takes long listening to build a relationship with a song.
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Aug 2, 2022 11:05:29 GMT -6
With respect, I suggest that long listening is for the artist, mixer and producer to make creative decisions. Mastering is less creative and more quality control, spectral balancing for translation, album cohesiveness and tonal enhancement. The role of the ME is different from the rest of the people involved. If the creative decisions haven't already been made before getting to mastering then perhaps it's not ready yet.
If you don't appreciate what mastering is and what it is not then you will continue to be disappointed. It's a different mindset from recording and mixing, and should have different expectations.
|
|