mastering - question

[for]

hello,

i know mixing is supposed to create this stereo file and then mastering proceeds

i was wondering why can't i just put my mastering plugin onto the master bus without creating that stereo file first.

thanks

[Cosmic]

Originally Posted by for

hello,

i know mixing is supposed to create this stereo file and then mastering proceeds

i was wondering why can't i just put my mastering plugin onto the master bus without creating that stereo file first.

thanks

Theres absolutely nothing stopping you.

Put it on there and mix into it

[@non]

The point of it is that they are to separate processes

1)create the mix
2) prepare the mix for broadcast, cd, vinyl, or the internet

the other point of mastering is having someone catch the mistakes you or your room create

-its hard to give yourself objective advice
-you lose perspective after listening to something for days

[thequietroom]

There are different views on this topic..

I've heard some compelling views about mixing with some 2bus limiting.. and just top it off at the end.

The important thing here is.. just putting a "mastering plug" on your 2 bus isn't really mastering

So if we just call this 2buss processing or volume maximising then go for it if you like that workflow

If you are trying to do something more akin to mastering i.e. trying to arrange multiple songs and get transitions, levels, balance etc between them for a CD, then you can see why a fresh project with stereo wave files or stems would be easier to work with than a giant multitrack project.

[bladerunner]

Originally Posted by Cosmic

Theres absolutely nothing stopping you.

Put it on there and mix into it

Putting your mastering plugins on the master after the mix is done is different from mixing 'into' your mastering chain. I personally wouldn't mix into the mastering chain... complex subject!

[thequietroom]

Originally Posted by bladerunner

Putting your mastering plugins on the master after the mix is done is different from mixing 'into' your mastering chain. I personally wouldn't mix into the mastering chain... complex subject!

I don't either.. I've done it by accident a few times and quickly realized I jacked up my mix...

The times I've tried to mix with a little compression on the master didn't work for me either.. for example I couldnt get the snare to sound right.. then after removing the 2bus processing I realize the snare is WAY to loud and eq'd crazy.. i would never have mixed it that way without the effect of whatever I had on the master bus..



This thread had a good talk about it.. Seems there are different views here

http://forum.recordingreview.com/f8/...pressor-39049/

[heda]

of course you can do it.. and that is why the Master Track is called Master Track In fact it is much better to do the "mastering" within the project at the same time as the mixing because one can affect the other and it can be much better to go back to the mix and fix things there than just use the master track to try to fix everything. So at the end the mastering nowadays can be much more similar to mixing than it was before.

But. mastering also involves that many songs in the same album share same characteristics of sound and volume, also the spaces between songs etc. That is better to be done in a separate project with all the final outputs of the songs rendered as files. Or! you could just render all the stems of the songs and do a project for mixing and mastering several songs at the same time. That's maybe too complex but we have done it for some projects.

it is curious that we all name it mastering when it is actually pre-mastering, which is producing the pre-master file used to build the Master, which is the final physical disc used to replicate. Now in the digital download world, if there is no physical copy of the song the master is a file too. a Loseless file of course.. and the replications can be mp3, aac etc...

[osflaa]

Originally Posted by bladerunner

Putting your mastering plugins on the master after the mix is done is different from mixing 'into' your mastering chain. I personally wouldn't mix into the mastering chain... complex subject!

+1

I always mix without effects on the master, but I master by applying effects on the master without mixing down first. That's because I prefer to go back and identify and fix any problems in the mix instead of fixing any problems in the masterchain since it also will effect things I don't want to change.

[Cosmic]

Originally Posted by bladerunner

Putting your mastering plugins on the master after the mix is done is different from mixing 'into' your mastering chain. I personally wouldn't mix into the mastering chain... complex subject!

And I wouldnt mix without doing it!

If I had any intention of getting stuff mastered I wouldnt

[bladerunner]

Originally Posted by Cosmic

And I wouldnt mix without doing it!

If I had any intention of getting stuff mastered I wouldnt

I've sometimes added a comp on the 2 buss at some stage in a mix and left it on whilst continuing to mix but that's as far as I've taken the concept. I like to have as much control as possible during the mix stage and then handle mastering as a completely separate process. I will bounce the mix and work on the wav rather than on the mix itself. On a rare occasion I might need to go back and adjust something to the mix and re-bounce it.

[LOSANO]

Originally Posted by bladerunner

I've sometimes added a comp on the 2 buss at some stage in a mix and left it on whilst continuing to mix but that's as far as I've taken the concept. I like to have as much control as possible during the mix stage and then handle mastering as a completely separate process. I will bounce the mix and work on the wav rather than on the mix itself. On a rare occasion I might need to go back and adjust something to the mix and re-bounce it.

I think, it's better to render your stereo file as a new track in the same project, and than disable all your plugins in your mix (for CPU purpose). And than, put your master plugins in that new track and play with it. So, if you stereo track (final mix) doesn't sound well, you still can go back to your mix, unable your plugins and work on it.

[LOSANO]

Originally Posted by for

hello,

i know mixing is supposed to create this stereo file and then mastering proceeds

i was wondering why can't i just put my mastering plugin onto the master bus without creating that stereo file first.

thanks

You may overload your CPU, depending on what plugins your are using on your individual tracks and on your master track. You may be hearing pops during playback.

[whiteaxxxe]

Originally Posted by for

hello,

i know mixing is supposed to create this stereo file and then mastering proceeds

i was wondering why can't i just put my mastering plugin onto the master bus without creating that stereo file first.

thanks

well, thats the way I (we) do it since stoneage. none of my albums were "mastered". sure they were mastered but that way you described.

this has some advantages, at least for me, because I do no single tracks, I always do whole albums. so if you do it the way you suggest, you will have a consistent sound within all tracks. at least more as if you mix single tracks, then have them mastered.

the second thing is - maybe I am a bit old school, but only a little bit - that it occurs to me always as a bit weird, to have things mastered. because: why should anyone else know better what I want, than me? that pair of new ears ... well, its new ears, so what? if somethign needs to be mastered its a lousy mix. ok, that is somewhat over the top statement, but its the direction I think of it. I dont feel and never felt that my work should be altered by someone else for the sake of "everybody gets his things mastered", for me that is one of that urban myths. mastering is for people who want their shitty pop-songs have loudness optimized and overcompressed and completely fucked up. ok, that another bold statement, I am slightly exaggerating. :-))) you know what I mean.

in former times - shortly after the stoneage - mastering was considered as someone doing the necessary technicalities to the music to get it without to damage onto vinyl. that what we call mastering nowadays is in real pre-mastering, and as said, I see no reason for doing that.

make your mixes sound good and there is no mastering needed.

and go over to Gearslutz and tell them that. you will get a great crucifixion. :-))) because all that mastering geniusses have that great reated rooms with that awesome colring mojo analog bullshit gear and that great pairs of fresh ears and whatnot. its hogwaash. (exaggeration, but the direction is ok. :-)))

[Tod]

Originally Posted by LOSANO

I think, it's better to render your stereo file as a new track in the same project, and than disable all your plugins in your mix (for CPU purpose). And than, put your master plugins in that new track and play with it. So, if you stereo track (final mix) doesn't sound well, you still can go back to your mix, unable your plugins and work on it.

Personally I don't put any FX on the MASTER. In almost every one of my projects I have my own MASTER track that goes to Reaper's Master. This is sort of a Sub-Master, however I might even have a Sub-Master going to that Master track. It all depends on what I'm doing and trying to accomplish.

Buses are free, to do with as you wish. Why limit yourself to something that is so limiting when you have a whole counsel of your own design sitting right in front of you.

Getting back to what LOSANO was saying, if you set up a SubMaster then you don't have to disable FX or anything else, all you have to do is set up a Group on the Mute buttons and switch back and forth.

In regards to whether I should Master while I'm Mixing, I think there is some confusion here. I do Master while I Mix. Actually I start Mixing with the first track that I lay down. Then I continue to mix as I go until I've got much of what I'm going to have in the box, so to speak, probably 75% or more done. Then I'll start throwing things (FX) on the SubMaster as I think I need them. Many of my projects end up with only a limiter on the SubMaster because I take care on how I record and process every track, whether it's audio or midi.

So okay, I master while I mix, but does that mean I wont send my mixes out to a mastering facility? Absolutely not, if my client or I can afford to have it mastered by a professional why not? It's not just another set of ears, it's a whole different process.

Now I'm not just going to send my/our mix out to just any body, they will be somebody we can trust.

[sdog]

Historically, two different terms were used because one engineer did the mixing in one space and a separate engineer did the mastering in another space. They were all engineers, but each was listening for subtly different things, so a dedicated mastering engineer is going to be adding certain bits of polish that he is extremely practiced at listening for while the mix engineer becomes extremely well practiced at fixing different facets of the audio.

Now that we all have the capability of "doing it all", on the same system, with the same set of ears, the question becomes, "should we"?

I can't answer that, but I can say this:

1. Do not discount the value of listening in a dedicated mastering room or even a room that is "different" from where you do most of your mixing. There is not a studio in the world that is acoustically perfect. Each is built with physically flawed components (a hell of a lot of boundaries and edges). Shaking things up and listening in a different environment will at least offer a different perspective.

2. Do not discount the value of having a different pair of ears evaluate your sound. Yes, you are the ultimate judge, but I can guarantee you that there are an incredible number of facets to any sound. I can also guarantee that you personally get too focused on some facets of your sound and under focused on other facets of your sound. I know this because I've been engineering for 30 years and I still over-focus and under-focus on different facets of my audio. You can't focus on phase problems if the off-pitch backup singer is driving you crazy. You can't focus on the muddy thumps down at 45Hz if you're distracted by the hiss at 8000Hz. You can't focus on how ragged the guitar crunches are if all you can hear is that 120Hz hum that leaked into your recording from your equipment. You're going to miss things, no matter how good you are, because down at the bottom of our souls, we're all single taskers.

Your mix/master, whether done all at once by one person, or in separate spaces by different people, will have far more to do with the ears and the brain and the acoustic space than it will with anything you do with a mastering plug-in.