KVR Audio

osiris · Post by **osiris** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:41 pm

I'm just saying because I had a mix that sounded great. All the levels were perfect - no clipping. Now I didn't put any additional EQ or use a multiband compressor or anything, but the Mastering chain I like to use really brought out parts that shouldn't have been so loud, like hats and actually made the lead clip, whereas on the unmastered track, it sounded perfect. It was easy enough to fix, but I'm glad I checked it first. It also tamed the bass, which was the last thing I wanted. Fixed.
Do an A/B. Stream. Then master.

LoFREEQ_Recordings · Post by **LoFREEQ_Recordings** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:55 pm

I mix and render to a 16 bit WAV, listen to that mix a few times on a couple of different system/speaker set ups to make sure I got the mix right, then load the final mixed-down WAV into a new session for mastering.

I don't bother with mixing down to a 24 bit file then dithering down to 16 bit during mastering. For the types of music I write and record, sticking with 16 bit files has worked fine so far.

I hope that helps!

knobs · Post by **knobs** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:26 am

using a pre-defined "mastering" chain is inefficient. thats not mastering

camsr · Post by **camsr** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:38 am

knobs wrote:using a pre-defined "mastering" chain is inefficient. thats not mastering

How is that not mastering if the mix engineer mixed with regard to how it would be mastered? Whole albums are mastered with the same chain and effects.

osiris · Post by **osiris** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:24 am

Eh? Me no follow. Could you expand on your point?

Keith99 · Post by **Keith99** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:55 am

I also export to 32 bit wav and then import into a mastering project where I have all the tracks from album for comparison when mastering. Then master down to 16 bit with dither. Although I must admit I cannot hear the effect of dithering.

highkoo · Post by **highkoo** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:07 pm

osiris wrote:Eh? Me no follow. Could you expand on your point?

Im guessing that he meant using a defined chain of settings, not just the chain of tools.
He said it was inefficient though, which I think is actually the one thing that technique would have going for it.

I think it makes sense to use the tools you know, but I agree that 'presets' of any kind dont make sense in mastering or on a master channel.

osiris · Post by **osiris** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:44 pm

No. Mastering is a fluid thing and you have to do different things for different songs. But, I found a chain that I like and think sounds good and that's what I use. Presets are a good starting point, but there's really no 'one fit all' preset for every song.

knobs · Post by **knobs** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:11 am

why would a mix engineer mix with regard to how it will be mastered?
thats backwards

SASonlinemastering · Post by **SASonlinemastering** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:12 pm

When self finalizing it probably makes sense to bounce out 24 bit without your "mastering" plugins on the output bus, ensuring no clipping results by de-activating your limiters.

Mastering applies a rather different type of listening than mixing does and whilst you will not achieve the objectivity of a mastering engineer, the finesse of a high res system (and acoustics) or benefit from the euphony of a well set up analogue chain it makes sense to work with fresh ears, a new project and the tracks in sequence. This way you can work relatively with the tracks and with reference to each other.

cheers

SafeandSound Mastering

Rendering before Mastering