Dare I master it?

[b1j]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

That's a good goal. And there's a ton to learn. And getting to the point that your home-recorded track fits in well with commercially produced songs is a pretty high bar.

One thing you might find useful is to find someone with more experience who you can visit and observe as they mix/master your track. Every time I've done recording in some one else's studio, I came away with a big list of things I needed to explore - lots of eye-opening moments - "I didn't know you could do that!" kinds of things.

Of course, there are also online lessons and videos on all aspects of recording these days, also worth exploring. Jim has some videos about mastering and so on in the sticky area for starters.

Good suggestions. I’ve dipped my toe in the water with online resources. I’d prefer a Q and A interaction with someone, though. I’m not sure how I’d find someone locally. I know of a sharp-looking recording studio in town, and that fellow probably masters his work. I’ll look him up and explore the idea.

[Doug Young]

I think you're confusing yourself with the K-Metering system. When you're talking about specific numbers, you have to do it in context. For example, 100 degrees Fahrenheit is very different from 100 degrees Celsius. You seem to be following a guideline to keep your tracks at -4 or -6 db, but that advice is probably relative to a full-scale meter. Using K-20 means "0" on the meter is already -20db, so if you use -6 on that meter, you're actually at -26db relative to true 0db. That's going to be really quiet.

[b1j]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I think you're confusing yourself with the K-Metering system. When you're talking about specific numbers, you have to do it in context. For example, 100 degrees Fahrenheit is very different from 100 degrees Celsius. You seem to be following a guideline to keep your tracks at -4 or -6 db, but that advice is probably relative to a full-scale meter. Using K-20 means "0" on the meter is already -20db, so if you use -6 on that meter, you're actually at -26db relative to true 0db. That's going to be really quiet.

Yes! That’s what I determined while writing my recent post (#15). An important detail.

[KevWind]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by b1j

Thanks, Kev. I played the YouTube video through my monitors, and then played my song without adjusting gain.

Ah , so again it's hard to compare unless the files are in the output"platform (not just the same playback device) Say for example if you downloaded the YT video and imported into your song project. then you would at least have eliminated one variable

In point of fact always advisable to import any "reference" track into your session/song to be closer to apples to apples ...

But in terms of you stated intentions for the project (below) likely need to do that because you will not be competing in say the Youtube world where the comparative LUFS is more of a factor ..

As to my goals for this, it’s basically for an audience of one: me. I want to play it in my car. I harbor no illusions that others will want to listen to it. I’ll send it to my brother, the way he sends me his recordings. He’ll probably play it once, and maybe not all arduous six minutes of it. I’ll put it on SoundCloud and send the link to a few family members. I’ll post it here on Show and Tell.

Ah so assuming your song is in WAV format
and you like way it sounds you might just export it to the format you are going to use in your car and or what your brother will use and call it good.

OR

Why, then, do I care about mastering? After having made significant inroads with mic use and room treatment, my acoustic guitars so sound much better than ever, even in the raw track (hooray!). In addition, it feels as though I’m discovering restraint and control with basic plugins and volume balancing. It’s time to step over and try the last step in production.

I just don’t want it to sound like some weird, jarring outlier recording compared to what we hear in popular music. I also have a vague expectation that, properly mastered, it will somehow sound better than my best efforts at mixing have achieved. In particular, I’d love to have the few measures of a dramatic crescendo feel like they’re popping out of the speakers without going outside the limits.

In short, I want to learn more about music production to feed my hobby.

Noted Ok so there is a Mastering section right in studio one,you might just play around with that if it has a good look ahead brick wall limiter you can start with that.... But note one needs to be carful because while it will keep your final outputs from clipping you can still be below clipping BUT causing distortion, if the rest of mix is brought up too much
(Subtle barely noticeable) is the key notion,,, such that you notice more as being gone a bit when you bypass as opposed hearing it actively when engaged.

I self mastered this for YouTube and the brick wall limiter is only boosting 2-3 db I believe

[b1j]

[QUOTE=KevWind;7441274]

Ah , so again it's hard to compare unless the files are in the output"platform (not just the same playback device) Say for example if you downloaded the YT video and imported into your song project. then you would at least have eliminated one variable

In point of fact always advisable to import any "reference" track into your session/song to be closer to apples to apples ...

But in terms of you stated intentions for the project (below) likely need to do that because you will not be competing in say the Youtube world where the comparative LUFS is more of a factor ..



Ah so assuming your song is in WAV format
and you like way it sounds you might just export it to the format you are going to use in your car and or what your brother will use and call it good.

OR




Noted Ok so there is a Mastering section right in studio one,you might just play around with that if it has a good look ahead brick wall limiter you can start with that.... But note one needs to be carful because while it will keep your final outputs from clipping you can still be below clipping BUT causing distortion, if the rest of mix is brought up too much
(Subtle barely noticeable) is the key notion,,, such that you notice more as being gone a bit when you bypass as opposed hearing it actively when engaged.

I self mastered this for YouTube and the brick wall limiter is only boosting 2-3 db I believe

Yes, I hope and expect that when I go to the mastering step the changes caused by mastering will be small.

There’s a nice cohesion to the instruments in your song, and the vocal sits right where you’d want it.

[zuzu]

I've never tried it myself, probably because almost everything I record is, sooner or later, intended for release. My mastering engineer went to college for it and you have likely heard his work somewhere. But, since I've known him since he was a kid (my son's close friend, stayed over at our house countless times) his fees for me are reasonable. Everything I've given him sounds great on any platform, BUT, he masters for each platform and asks which platform the piece is for. I've issued no vinyl, but I always have him do a streaming master and a CD master, vinyl would be yet a different one.

I think I could probably figure it out and produce what is a good sounding master in my monitors, but do I know how to optimize it for each platform? Am I aware of the sonic tendencies of the algorithms of the major streaming platforms? No, I don't know. He does. If you plan to release you may want to consider having a professional master the project.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by b1j

My mix is at a state where I have a full, rich sound, and I don't hear any distracting muddiness. There's even air in the bass, in its very own zone (2k). The other instruments receive selected cuts and their little custom boosts at 200, 230, 400, 800, 1500, and 5800. The bass has a nice wide scoop at 450. That's all I know to do with EQ. No woofs anywhere.

Every note from every instrument is discernible and occupies its aural location, like a small vocal ensemble. There's tons of saturation (see other harmonics thread) and no need for stereo widening; it's been done with panning, EQ traffic control, and the distinct instrument timbres. I sent all the tracks to a single room reverb set for 2.4 sec in a 17x22x10 foot space, which I think gives those resonances the right amount of bloom time.

Apparent loudness is even-handed throughout the verses and events. I did make another significant tweak on one track tonight. Loudness-wise, it kind of dances now through the stages of the song.

The high-strung guitar and the bass each have soft-knee compression to keep them poised and articulate without sharp peaks or whispers. The mix track has the 1176 emulator I gushed about last week. Hanging onto that!

Every track has headroom: none of them exceed -12 dB, and the mix track rides between -4 and -6.

In short, I can't imagine any other mixing adjustments to make.

So to get to the point, do I defy common sense and try to master this mess, nube that I am? I have no clear notion of goals except reference-level loudness. I don't know how to deal with overall EQ, compression, or reverb. It's all done already, right? (Pros, see what I mean about being clueless?)

I wish there was a way to be guided through the mastering process, to learn hands-on.

A good mastering engineer will help you become a better mix engineer. By using an experienced mastering engineer you will get feedback on the mix (and they'll probably ask you to make mix changes on issues they notice that are better tackled at the mix level). Then they will take that mix and smooth out all the rough edges. Lastly, yes, they'll make it loud to compete in today's streaming world.

This is your chance to get better ears on your mix. If you have the budget, I wouldn't skimp on it.

[b1j]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

A good mastering engineer will help you become a better mix engineer. By using an experienced mastering engineer you will get feedback on the mix (and they'll probably ask you to make mix changes on issues they notice that are better tackled at the mix level). Then they will take that mix and smooth out all the rough edges. Lastly, yes, they'll make it loud to compete in today's streaming world.

This is your chance to get better ears on your mix. If you have the budget, I wouldn't skimp on it.

That’s exactly what I’m going to do. I’ve sent an mp3 to a local producer and I have a quote for a) mastering only (with feedback on my mix) or b) remixing + mastering — both either unattended by me or as a training session I can watch and learn from. Sounds like a great way to peep over the fence a bit.

I’m crossing fingers that I can resolve at home any mixing recommendations they give me. Then I’ll opt for the mastering witness/training session.

I still need to do the last bit of tracking; that’s scheduled for 4/18 — 4/21.

They specified one medium only. Which one should I request? If I say mp3, I’d still be able to pop that up onto SoundCloud, right?

One thing that’s a mild disappointment is that they use Pro Tools (no surprise), but I use Studio One. Will this limit me in anyway?

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by b1j

That’s exactly what I’m going to do. I’ve sent an mp3 to a local producer and I have a quote for a) mastering only (with feedback on my mix) or b) remixing + mastering — both either unattended by me or as a training session I can watch and learn from. Sounds like a great way to peep over the fence a bit.

I’m crossing fingers that I can resolve at home any mixing recommendations they give me. Then I’ll opt for the mastering witness/training session.

I still need to do the last bit of tracking; that’s scheduled for 4/18 — 4/21.

They specified one medium only. Which one should I request? If I say mp3, I’d still be able to pop that up onto SoundCloud, right?

One thing that’s a mild disappointment is that they use Pro Tools (no surprise), but I use Studio One. Will this limit me in anyway?

I'd be suspicious of an engineer wanting to master an mp3. I won't go into why (you can google that) but you should send .wav files and unless he or she is mixing your tracks, send an interleaved stereo wav file at the rate it was recorded, hopefully at least 24 bit, 44.1khz.

If the engineer is doing the mixing send each track in a separate file, all starting at zero in your DAW and all clearly marked as to what it is. It's irrelevant whether or not he uses a different DAW than you as long as you note what plugins and their settings are on each track, if you want him to stick to the effects you've chosen.

When it's mastered it can easily be compressed to an mp3 and limited to whatever streaming service you want to upload your songs to.

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by b1j

They specified one medium only. Which one should I request? If I say mp3, I’d still be able to pop that up onto SoundCloud, right?

"Medium" or "format"? Medium suggests the physical manifestation: CD, flash drive, digital download (or vinyl record, which isn't likely in this case). "Format" would mean how the actual bits are stored. You want something uncompressed; as runamuck said the best choice is WAV, but you could do FLAC or ALAC (lossless) if your physical storage device isn't big enough for WAV. Definitely not MP3!

[b1j]

Originally Posted by runamuck

I'd be suspicious of an engineer wanting to master an mp3. I won't go into why (you can google that) but you should send .wav files and unless he or she is mixing your tracks, send an interleaved stereo wav file at the rate it was recorded, hopefully at least 24 bit, 44.1khz.

If the engineer is doing the mixing send each track in a separate file, all starting at zero in your DAW and all clearly marked as to what it is. It's irrelevant whether or not he uses a different DAW than you as long as you note what plugins and their settings are on each track, if you want him to stick to the effects you've chosen.

When it's mastered it can easily be compressed to an mp3 and limited to whatever streaming service you want to upload your songs to.

I sent an mp3 just so they could get a preliminary idea about what they’d be working with. My five tracks are 32 bit (I think) and 192 kHz. I’ll send them whatever they end up asking for, once they tell me how to do that.

[b1j]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

"Medium" or "format"? Medium suggests the physical manifestation: CD, flash drive, digital download (or vinyl record, which isn't likely in this case). "Format" would mean how the actual bits are stored. You want something uncompressed; as runamuck said the best choice is WAV, but you could do FLAC or ALAC (lossless) if your physical storage device isn't big enough for WAV. Definitely not MP3!

Yes. I’ll have to settle that question as we move forward. I actually thought they meant iTunes or Spotify or SoundCloud or the like.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by b1j

I sent an mp3 just so they could get a preliminary idea about what they’d be working with. My five tracks are 32 bit (I think) and 192 kHz. I’ll send them whatever they end up asking for, once they tell me how to do that.

Lets back up a bit for DAW recording 101

First MP3 is file format and has nothing to do with 32 bit 192 kHz

#1--- 32 bit is the bit depth number
#2 --- 192 kHz is the sample rate number

#3--- MP3 is the file format designation (which as others have noted is a compressed file format)

Me I would not send an MP3 I would export and send a WAV period

Also I would suggest you set your song preferences to export @ 24 bit 48 kHz Myself I see little reason to work (in your DAW at home) in 32 bit (with the possible exception of field recording, where unexpected level jumps may occur) or the need for 192 (regardless of what you read or hear on the internet)

[b1j]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Lets back up a bit for DAW recording 101

First MP3 is file format and has nothing to do with 32 bit 192 kHz

#1--- 32 bit is the bit depth number
#2 --- 192 kHz is the sample rate number

#3--- MP3 is the file format designation (which as others have noted is a compressed file format)

Me I would not send an MP3 I would export and send a WAV period

Also I would suggest you set your song preferences to export @ 24 bit 48 kHz Myself I see little reason work in 32 bit (with the possible exception of filed recording where unexpected level jumps may occur) or 192 (regardless of what you read or hear on the internet)

Kev, they’re not going to use the mp3 I sent them to master from. They just wanted to hear if I had something plausible or a hot mess they wouldn’t want to touch. They knew they were dealing with an amateur.

All forms and formats I eventually send them will match what this pro shop requires from me, to the greatest extent possible. For example, I suppose I’m about to learn whether the tracks are constrained to remain in the bit depth and sampling rate they were created in.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by b1j

That’s exactly what I’m going to do. I’ve sent an mp3 to a local producer and I have a quote for a) mastering only (with feedback on my mix) or b) remixing + mastering — both either unattended by me or as a training session I can watch and learn from. Sounds like a great way to peep over the fence a bit.

I’m crossing fingers that I can resolve at home any mixing recommendations they give me. Then I’ll opt for the mastering witness/training session.

I still need to do the last bit of tracking; that’s scheduled for 4/18 — 4/21.

They specified one medium only. Which one should I request? If I say mp3, I’d still be able to pop that up onto SoundCloud, right?

One thing that’s a mild disappointment is that they use Pro Tools (no surprise), but I use Studio One. Will this limit me in anyway?

I think that's a great move. You'll learn a lot.

I'd request a full quality WAV file, which you can convert to whatever you need later, but you'll always have a full quality source to listen to.

I wouldn't worry about which DAW is used. The process is the same.