View Single Post
Old 06-12-2019, 10:31 AM   #16
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 54

vdubreeze's post has me pondering further on matters mastering. I hope it's correct enough to include my related questions in this thread.

I'd not be attracted to a mastering mill. I've seen enough YouTube tutorials to appreciate what an elegant and refined art mastering can be when done by a "master". And it would be nice to have the benefit of some master masterer's seasoned listening and boutique listening gear waving their wands over my unseasoned mixes. Still, if I find that master mastering costs billions, might the Reaper way be to consider taking up the study myself? I'd lose the benefit of somebody else's hearing the mixes fresh, and through better gear. But might I not with practice and study refine my own abilities?

In the brave/foolish event I were to attempt mastering my own album, how would y'all suggest going about it? Would you master each song-project from its multi-track format? Or mix down to a master stereo track and reimport that?

My twelve song tracks, a mix of folk-bluesy-gospel American styles, though some having electric guitars and drums and horns and pianos and organs and massed vocals on choruses, probably will not have the potential to become what David Gnozzi calls "stupid loud". Of course I'd like the album to be competitively loud. But I don't want to crush the timbres. As in painting, I want the colors, though mixed, still to keep some of their individual characters. Avoid mud, you know? Avoid that squashed, wall-of-volume thing.

Then, beyond bringing up volume, there's the EQing. I see the mastering masters making these half-db tweaks and wonder if I could ever get to that nuanced level. Though I do understand that in mastering any EQ move is like applying the same move to every track of a multi-track project. So it makes sense one would want to be conservative.

A rambling, unfocused post. Still, your thoughts welcomed.
3buddhas is offline   Reply With Quote